47
the technical manual
thetechnicalmanual
ONTENTS1 OVERVIEW
2 THE PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE OIP+
3 ADMINISTRATION INSTRUCTIONS
4 REFERENCES
c
2
31 STANDARDISATION SAMPLE COMPOSITION
2 OIP+ INTERNAL CONSISTENCIES & ITEM TOTAL CORRELATIONS (ITC’S)3 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN OIP+ PERSONAL WORK NEEDS (N = 2556)4 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN OIP+ VOCATIONAL INTERESTS (N = 2556)5 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN OIP+ INTERESTS & WORK NEEDS (N = 2556)6 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN 15FQ AND OIP+ WORK NEEDS (N=1971)7 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN 15FQ AND OIP+ VOCATIONAL INTERESTS
8 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN JTI AND OIP+ (N=1971)9 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN OIP+ SCALES AND HOLLAND’S VPI INTEREST SCALES
10 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN OIP+ AND VPI ADDITIONAL SCALES
11 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN OIP+ INTERESTS & ROTHWELL-MILLER
12 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN OIP+ AND OPP SCALES
13 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN OIP+WORK NEEDS & 16PF
14 OIP+ (N=2556) FACTOR PATTERN LOADINGS
LIST OF FIGURES1 OIP+ PROFILE FOR PERSUASIVE OCCUPATIONS
2 OIP+ PROFILE FOR PRACTICAL ROLES
3 OIP+ PROFILE OF BUREAUCRATIC ROLES
4 OIP+ §PROFILE OF CARING ROLES
LIST OF TABLES
4
1OVERVIEW The OIP+ is a test developed for use
in a wide range of assessment andguidance situations. The test was
developed in the United Kingdom ona large sample of individuals drawn
from a wide range of different ageand occupational groups and socialbackgrounds. Thus the OIP+ is par-
ticularly appropriate for use inassessment and Guidance in theUK. The OIP+ contains sixteen
scales, eight measuring personalwork needs and eight measuring
occupational interests. Each of theeight personal work needs measured
by the OIP+ is bi-polar. That is tosay high or low scores on each
dimension measure opposite char-acteristics (e.g. extraversion v intro-
version, etc.). The characteristicswhich are measured by the OIP+
have been selected for two reasons.Firstly, for their relevance to assess-
ment and guidance decisions, andsecondly, because of extensive
research evidence demonstratingtheir validity. Thus the test user can
be confident that the OIP+ is mea-suring meaningful aspects of the
respondent’s occupational interestsand personal work needs.
1 MEASURING PERSONAL QUALITIES
2 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE OIP+
3 THE OIP+ INTEREST SCALES
4 THE OIP+ WORK INTERESTS
6MEASURING PERSONALQUALITIESInterest in the measurement of psy-chological characteristics (psycho-metrics) can be traced back to thelate 19th Century (e.g. Galton,1884). Pioneering work in the fieldof vocational interest measurementwas carried out by E.K. Strong, Jr.,who developed the Strong VocationalInterest Blank in the 1920’s. But itwas the impetus provided by thesecond world war which resulted insuch interest developing into a seri-ous scientific enterprise. During thewar there was a great need to selectmilitary personnel for air crew train-ing which led to the development ofa number of psychometric tests bothhere and in the UK. The main inter-est at that time was in the develop-ment of IQ tests, or tests of mentalability as they used to be called,rather than in the development ofpersonality tests. Whilst trait theory,which underlies much of personalitytesting, had been developed byAllport in the 1930’s it was sometime before this was used in anattempt to construct personalitymeasures. It was not until after theSecond World War that such workcame to fruition.
The reasons for psychologicaltesting burgeoning after the warwere basically twofold. Firstly,modern computers permitted thelengthy and complex statisticalanalysis of data which is required toproduce a test. Thus David
Campbell (Campbell, 1974) wasable to use the computing powernewly available to carry out theresearch and analysis which led tothe Strong-Campbell InterestInventory in a relatively short periodof time. The second reason for thedramatic increase in psychologicaltesting probably lay in the growingrealisation that only by being able tounderstand and measure individualdifferences could we hope to predictbehaviour with any degree of relia-bility.
The principles which underliepersonal qualities and interest mea-surement are not as complex as theymight first appear. A questionnaire issimply a collection of questions, or“items”, which assess an individual’sinterests or characteristic ways ofthinking, feeling and acting in differ-ent situations. Items do not have todirectly ask a person how they typi-cally behave (e.g. I am a warm,friendly person). All that is neededfor an item to work is for people torespond to it in a consistent way.Thus, good questionnaires can bereliable, yet contain items which arenot transparent or obvious in whatthey seek to ascertain. In the area ofoccupational guidance and assess-ment it is in fact best not to usetransparent items, thus making itharder to fake test results. Of coursethere is less reason for individualswho are completing questionnaires
7for career direction or developmentpurposes to wish to portray a falselypositive image than there is for anapplicant for a job.
Personal qualities and interestquestionnaires take items whichmeasure different aspects of the samepersonality characteristic or interestarea and combine them to form sub-scales or dimensions. By askingquestions which address many dif-ferent facets of a person’s life, ques-tionnaires attempt to get a broadpicture of an individual’s interestsand how they usually act in differentsettings and with different people(e.g. with friends, at work, at formalsocial engagements etc.). Thus, whenwe say a person is extroverted, wemean that he is sociable, lively, out-going and friendly: that he usuallyseeks variety, change and excitementand has a great need for others’ com-pany. In addition to addressing thosecharacteristics which are extreme oroutstanding, questionnaires alsoassess those ways in which a personis average.
In personal development situa-tions we are often as interested tofind that a person is average on acertain trait as we are to identifytheir most notable or extreme char-acteristics. For example having anaverage score on a particular trait,
say assertiveness, may better fit thedemands of the job being consideredthan being either highly challengingoriented or very accommodating.Average scores can describe a bal-anced and flexible position, wherethe person is capable of displayingthe strengths which are found atboth of the extreme ends of the per-sonality dimension. In the case of aperson who has average levels ofassertion for example, they are likelyto strive to achieve a balancebetween being task-focussed andachieving results, yet being sensitiveto others’ needs and avoiding inter-personal conflicts.
8An initial theoretical structure forthe interest test was developed froma review of existing vocational inter-est questionnaires (e.g. KuderPreference Record, Rothwell-MillerBlank, Vocational PreferenceInventory etc.). Also of importancein the development process was thepioneering research carried out byJohn Holland in the area of generalcareer themes. Holland (1985),reporting on the culmination ofmany years of research, suggestedthat the main dimensions underlyingmost interest inventories could beaccounted for by means of six gener-al career themes –Realistic,Investigative, Artistic, Social,Enterprising and Conventional.
The Holland career themes arestrongly reflected in the eight interestscales contained in the OccupationalInterest Profile. The initial researchon the OIP+ suggested that somechanges to the basic Holland schemewere desirable. Three of the mostimportant of these were dictated bychanging circumstances since thethemes were originally proposed. Itwas decided that the enormousgrowth in the areas of InformationTechnology and Computing requiredthe splitting of the Investigativetheme into two components–Scientific and Logical, with thelatter interest focussing on mathe-matics and IT skills. It was alsodecided that, due to the growing
importance of the financial servicessector, the Conventional theme inHolland’s scheme needed wideningto include interests in both adminis-trative and financial matters. Finally,with the growth of service sector jobsand the increasing range of roles thatrequire people management skills anew interest was added; managerial.
In addition to vocational interestsan individual’s personality clearlyhas a role in career choice. A reviewof the relevant literature indicatedthat seven personal variables playeda significant role in career choice.Measures of extraversion, emotionalstability, openness and conscien-tiousness were included in the OIP+because as research has demonstrat-ed that these three personality fac-tors account for much of thevariance in the majority of personali-ty questionnaires. In addition, mea-sures of the need to take control ofsituations, the desire for financialreward and the need for variety andchange were included because oftheir clear relevance to career choice.
Thus, a total of sixteen scales,eight interest and eight personalqualities, are measured in a ques-tionnaire consisting of 128 items.Personal qualities and career interestquestions are presented as a singletest. The response format is a5-point Likert scale ranging fromStrongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.
THE DEVELOPMENT OFTHE OIP+
9If the aptitude approach to careerguidance is followed, individuals aregiven a number of tests in whichthey have to perform at their maxi-mum. Their scores on the tests,which typically include reasoning,mechanical aptitude, spatial reason-ing and a range of other aptitudes,are then compared to scores obtainedby specific occupational groups.Thus, if an individual performedwell on a test of spatial reasoningthen, depending upon other criteriabeing satisfactory, a number ofcareers that involve a large compo-nent of spatial reasoning would besuggested.
The other approach to careerguidance is to offer career interest,personal qualities and, optionally,some brief form of reasoning assess-ment to provide the careers adviserwith objective and reliable informa-tion concerning the respondent. Themajor difference between the twoapproaches is that in the interests/personal values approach, the clientis asked questions to elicit informa-tion concerning themselves, while inthe aptitude approach they are‘tested’ for their maximum level ofperformance on a range of workrelated aptitudes.
Of course, the two approaches arenot mutually exclusive and it wouldoften be beneficial to combine theOIP+ with either a general reasoningtest such as the GRT2 or a test oftechnical aptitudes such as theTechnical Test Battery.
THE APTITUDE VERSUSINTEREST APPROACH TOCAREERS GUIDANCE
bk THE OIP+ INTEREST SCALES PERSUASIVE
High scorers on this scale show aninterest in persuasive roles. Thisinvolves the communication of infor-mation and ideas in a persuasivemanner. An interest in this area indi-cates someone who would enjoyspeaking in public, relishing theopportunity to convert a group ofpeople to their way of thinking.Typical vocational roles for thosewith high persuasive interests wouldbe sales representatives, public rela-tions and politics.
SCIENTIFIC
High scorers on this scale show aninterest in scientific pursuits includ-ing Physics, Chemistry, Medicine andlaboratory work. Such an interestindicates a preference for discoveringnew facts and problem-solving.Primarily concerned with analyticalskill and scientific curiosity individu-als with a high score on this scaleprefer to work with ideas and scien-tific principles.
PRACTICAL
High scorers on this scale show aninterest in practical, mechanicalactivities. People scoring highly onthis scale would typically be interest-ed in working with their hands, find-ing great satisfaction in being able toconstruct something. Vocational rolesinvolving such things as engineering,machine tools, crafts, mechanicaland civil engineering would all be ofinterest to the high scorer on thisscale.
ADMINISTRATIVE
High scorers on this scale show aninterest in organising and maintain-ing information. Both financial andclerical/administration areas aresampled by this scale. High scorerswould typically be interested in suchactivities as bookkeeping, stock con-trol etc. Other things being equal onewould expect people who display thispreference to be excellent at jobswhich required attention to largeamounts of paperwork and the keep-ing of detailed records.
NURTURING
High scorers on this scale are inter-ested in helping and caring forothers. Such individuals will find iteasy to talk to others and empathisewith them. Thus they will be good athelping people who have problems,and will probably be sought out byothers wishing to tell them theirproblems. High scorers on this scalewould probably prefer working inhelping professions such as teaching,social work, health care etc.
ARTISTIC
High scorers on this scale show aninterest in all areas concerned withthe creation of artistic products orideas. High scorers will be interestedin a wide range of artistic endeav-ours such as painting, theatre, pho-tography, design of all types etc.Such individuals will tend to expressthemselves through their artisticactivities. High scorers on artisticwould enjoy working in most areasof the arts and entertainment indus-try.
LOGICAL
High scorers on this scale show aninterest in logical, rational pursuits.Such individuals enjoy solving puz-zles of all types and would beextremely interested in any activitiesdealing with logic, computation andmathematics. Of special interest tohigh scorers would be any areaswhich involved them using comput-ers for a major part of their time.
MANAGERIAL
High scorers on this scale show aninterest in managing others. Theyenjoy directing the work of othersand feel comfortable giving peopleinstructions They are likely to enjoypeople management roles in theretail, leisure or service sector, aswell as enjoying more traditionalmanagerial positions.
blEXCITEMENT
This scale provides a measure of theextent to which an individual requiresvariety and change in their life. Highscorers will always be seeking newand exciting activities and will proba-bly become extremely bored if askedto perform the same task for anylength of time. Such individuals alsoenjoy taking risks and require someelement of adventure or excitement intheir life. Low scorers, on the otherhand, will prefer set routines and thefamiliarity of doing things they havedone before. These will be cautious,safety conscious individuals who haveno need for excitement and thrills intheir life.
STABILITY
High scorers on this dimension areemotionally stable, calm and com-posed individuals. Generally opti-mistic, they will rarely brood overpast failures but will instead get onwith the next task. Accepting criti-cism in a good natured way they willrarely be upset by the thoughtlesscomments others might make. Lowscorers tend to be emotionallyvolatile prone to sudden swings intheir mood. Easily upset by othersthey may react adversely to criticismeven if this is justified. Such individu-als will have a tendency to worryabout past failures and feel depressedat their perceived inadequacies.
AGREEABLENESS
High scorers on likely to be cynicalin their perspective on life. Havinglittle faith in human nature they arelikely to be suspicious about others’motives, believing that most peopleare only motivated by self-interest.As a result they will not be easilytaken in by flattery or praise and aremore likely to be quite guarded intheir dealings with others. Lowscorers, on the other hand, aretrusting, generous and kind-hearted.Inclined to give people the benefit of
the douby, others may on occasiontake advantage of their good will.Generous and philanthropic bynature, they will be motivated tohelp those they perceive as beingmore needy than themselves.
OPTIMISM
High scorers will generally take anoptimistic approach to set-backs.Believing that their actions shape out-comes, they are likely to persevere inthe face of adversity, believing thatproblems will be resolved with effortand hard work. Not inclined to admitdefeat in the face of failure, they mayon occasion be inclined to perseverewith tasks when it might have beenmore constructive to have concededdefeat and to have invested theirenergies elsewhere. Low scorers, onthe other hand, are prone to becomedispirited in the face of failure. Whilethey are likely to be as optimistic asmost when things are going well, theymay quickly concede defeat whenthings go wrong. Doubting their, andothers’, ability to shape events theymay ascribe positive outcomes tochance or good luck.
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
A high score on this scale suggestsan individual who will pay attentionto detail, displaying perseveranceand self-control. Well organised, theywill be careful to plan ahead,attempting to account for any possi-ble contingencies. If they start a taskthey will feel compelled to see itthrough to completion. Low scorerswill not be the most organised peoplein the world, tending to be carelessand impractical. Spontaneouspeople, they will see little need formaking plans, and will often starttasks but lose interest in them beforethey are finished.
EXTRAVERSION
A measure of sociability, giving anindication of an individual’s desire to
work with people, be an active groupparticipant and need group supportand recognition. High scorers willdislike being on their own, preferringto be a member of a group. They willhave a great liking for social occa-sions and will not shirk from beingthe centre of attention. Low scorerswill much prefer to work alone,tending to prefer their own companyto that of others. They will have littleneed for group support and socialrecognition feeling comfortable whenmaking their own decisions.
OPENNESS
This scale provides a measure of aperson’s openness to new ideas. Highscorers are likely to be interested inintellectual pursuits and to think inabstract theoretical ways. They areinclined to bring a radical, innova-tive approach to problem solving,being open to theoretical possibilitiesand unconventional ideas. Lowscorers, on the other hand, aredown to earth and pragmatic.Realistic and practical in their think-ing style, they are inclined to rejecttheoretical, abstract approaches toproblem solving. Preferring to focuson concrete issues they will be moreconcerned to get things workingrather than ponder why they work.
FINANCIAL
High scorers value money and thetrappings of wealth. They are likelyto be motivated by financial successand appreciate the status that wealthconfers. Aspirational by nature, theyare likely to seek work that offers thepotential for large financial rewards.Low scorers, on the other hand, arenot particularly motivated by money.Not being particularly aspirationalby nature their main concern whenconsidering a job will not be itspotential financial rewards. Ratherthey are likely to seek work that willbe intrinsically rewarding even if itdoes not pay well.
THE OIP+ PERSONALWORK NEEDS
bm
2THE PSYCHOMETRICPROPERTIES OFTHE OIP+This chapter will present details con-
cerning the psychometric propertiesof the Occupational Interest Profile.
The aim will be to show that theOIP+ fulfils various technical
requirements, in the areas of stan-dardisation, reliability and validity,
which ensure the psychometricsoundness of the test.
1 INTRODUCTION
2 STANDARDISATION PROCEDURES AND
NORMATIVE DATA
3 RELIABILITY OF THE OIP+
4 CONSTRUCT VALIDITY
5 FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE OIP+
bo INTRODUCTIONSTANDARDISATION : NORMATIVE
Normative data allows us to comparean individual’s score on a standard-ised scale against the typical scoreobtained from a clearly identifiable,homogeneous group of people.
In order to provide meaningfulinterpretations, the OIP+ was stan-dardised against a number of rele-vant groups.
Standardisation ensures that themeasurements obtained from a testcan be meaningfully interpreted inthe context of a relevant distributionof scores. Another important techni-cal requirement for a psychometri-cally sound test is that themeasurements obtained from thattest should be reliable.
RELIABILITY
Reliability is the property of a mea-surement which assesses the extentto which variation in measurement isdue to true differences betweenpeople on the trait being measuredor to measurement error.
Reliability is generally assessedusing two specific measures, onerelated to the stability of scale scoresover time, the other concerned withthe internal consistency, or homo-geneity of the constituent items thatform a scale score.
RELIABILITY : STABILITY
Also known as test-retest reliability,an assessment is made of the similar-ity of scores on a particular scaleover two or more test occasions. Theoccasions may be from a few hours,days, months or years apart.Normally Pearson correlation coeffi-cients are used to quantify the simi-larity between the scale scores overthe two or more occasions.
Stability coefficients provide animportant indicator of a test’s likelyusefulness of measurement. If thesecoefficients are low (< approx. 0.6)then it is suggestive that either thebehaviours/attitudes being measuredare volatile or situationally specific,or that over the duration of the retestinterval, situational events have ren-dered the content of the scale irrele-vant or obsolete. Of course, theduration of the retest interval pro-vides some clue as to which effectmay be causing the unreliability ofmeasurement. However, the secondmeasure of a scale’s reliability alsoprovides valuable information as towhy a scale may have a low stabilitycoefficient.
bpRELIABILITY : INTERNALCONSISTENCY
Also known as scale homogeneity, anassessment is made of the ability ofthe items in a scale to measure thesame construct or trait. That is, aparameter can be computed thatindexes how well the items in a scalecontribute to the overall measure-ment denoted by the scale score. Ascale is said to be internally consis-tent if all the constituent itemresponses are shown to be positivelyassociated with their scale score.
The most common measure ofinternal consistency is Cronbach’sAlpha. If the items on a scale havehigh inter-correlations with eachother, and with the total scale score,then coefficient alpha will be high.Thus a high coefficient alpha indi-cates that the items on the scale aremeasuring very much the samething, while a low alpha would besuggestive of either scale items mea-suring different attributes or thepresence of error.
The fact that a test has high inter-nal consistency and stability coeffi-cients only guarantees that it ismeasuring something consistently. Itprovides no guarantee that the test isactually measuring what it purportsto measure, nor that the test willprove useful in a particular situation.Questions concerning what a testactually measures and its relevancein a particular situation are dealtwith by looking at the test’s validity.Reliability is generally investigatedbefore validity as the reliability of atest places an upper limit on thetest’s validity. It can be mathemati-cally demonstrated that a validitycoefficient for a particular testcannot exceed that tests reliabilitycoefficient.
VALIDITY
The ability of a scale score to reflectwhat that scale is intended to mea-sure. Kline’s (1993) definition is “Atest is said to be valid if it measureswhat it claims to measure”.
Validation studies of a test investi-gate the soundness and relevance ofa proposed interpretation of that test.Two key areas of validation areknown as criterion validity and con-struct validity.
VALIDITY : CRITERIONVALIDITY
Criterion validity involves translatinga score on a particular test into aprediction concerning what could beexpected if another variable wasobserved.
The criterion validity of a test isprovided by demonstrating thatscores on the test relate in somemeaningful way with an external cri-terion. Criterion validity comes intwo forms –predictive and concur-rent. Predictive validity assesseswhether a test is capable of predict-ing an agreed criterion which will beavailable at some future time –e.g.can a test predict the likelihood ofsomeone successfully completing atraining course. Concurrent validityassesses whether the scores on a testcan be used to predict a criterionmeasure which is available at thetime of the test –e.g. can a test pre-dict current job performance.
VALIDITY : CONSTRUCTVALIDITY
Construct validity assesses whetherthe characteristic which a test isactually measuring is psychologicallymeaningful and consistent with thetest’s definition.
The construct validity of a test isassessed by demonstrating that thescores from the test are consistentwith those from other major testswhich measure similar constructsand are dissimilar to scores on testswhich measure different constructs.
bqThe OIP+ is an occupational interestinstrument designed to be usedacross a wide spectrum of careerassessment/guidance situations. Thetotal standardisation sample is basedon 2500+ UK adults made up fromthe following constituent samples:
MANAGEMENT APPLICANTS
A total of 1705 individuals applyingfor a wide variety of managementposts, the data being collected from anumber of companies during 1993-1994. The sample consisted ofapproximately 82% males and 18%females.
POSTAL SAMPLE
582 individuals responded to a largescale postal survey in which theywere asked to complete the OIP+.The questionnaires were completedduring the early part of 1993. Thissample consisted of representativesof a wide number of occupationsranging from manual labour throughto professional occupations. Thesample comprised approximatelyequal numbers of both sexes.
CHILD CARE APPLICANTS
163 applicants for places on a childcare training program with aNorthern training college completedthe OIP+ during 1993-1994.Females made up 97% of thesample.
GENERAL APPLICANTS
106 applicants for a wide variety ofgeneral posts completed the OIP+ aspart of their application procedure.These posts were with a number ofcompanies throughout the UK. Thesample was almost equally dividedbetween the sexes.
5TH YEAR STUDENTS
76 5th Year students from aHertfordshire Comprehensive schooltook part in the initial normative tri-alling of the OIP+. The sample con-sisted of almost equal numbers ofboth sexes.
The table on the following pageprovides summary information con-cerning the constituent samples ofthe total standardisation sample of2556 individuals. The total sampleconsisted of 70% males and 30%females. The total age range coveredby the standardisation sample was16-66 years.
STANDARDISATIONPROCEDURES ANDNORMATIVE DATA
br
Sample ID
1
2
3
4
5
Table 1: Standardisation Sample Composition
Males Females
Number
1411
336
158
51
36
Mean Age
31
41
22
29
16
Range
23-55
18-66
18-34
20-45
16-17
Number
293
245
5
55
40
Mean Age
33
35
20
27
16
Range
28-49
21-52
18-22
21-42
16-17
bs RELIABILITY OF THE OIP+INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
Internal consistency reliabilities(Cronbach’s Alpha) were computedon the entire sample. The coefficientsare computed for combined malesand females for each relevantsample. Table 2 below provides thesecoefficients separately for eachsample and for the entire normativesample.
The mean ‘corrected’ item-totalcorrelations for each scale are alsoreported for each sample. Theseparameters index the average associ-ation between the constituent itemswithin a scale and the scale scoreitself. Each individual item-scalescore coefficient is corrected for theinflation of the coefficient due to the
item’s inclusion in the scale score. Inaddition, Table 2 provides thenumber of items which make upeach scale.
Table 2 shows that, for the totalsample, all the OIP+ dimensionshave internal consistency reliabilitycoefficients of 0.79 or above, indicat-ing that the test dimensions have anacceptable level of reliability. It canbe seen that the reliabilities also holdup quite well across the two sub-groups reported above. The reliabili-ty of these scales compares extremelyfavourably with the reliability coeffi-cients reported in the user manualsfor such tests as the OPQ and 16PF.
btSample 3(N=163)
Sample 2(N=582)
Total Sample(N=2500)
Table 2: OIP+ Internal Consistencies & Item Total Correlations (ITC’s)
ScaleNeed for VarietyNeed for StabilityNeed for StructureNeed for PeopleNeed for ControlPersuasiveScientificPracticalAdministrativeCaringCreativeLogical
No. of Items101010121010101010101010
Alpha0.770.830.690.750.800.780.820.750.730.700.870.73
ITC0.250.340.180.210.300.270.320.240.220.210.400.23
Alpha0.900.830.790.860.900.850.880.820.860.840.870.83
ITC0.470.350.280.350.490.360.440.320.390.340.410.34
Alpha0.860.830.740.850.880.830.880.810.840.900.870.87
ITC0.380.340.230.340.440.330.440.310.340.470.400.41
ckTHE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF THE OIP+
The inter-correlations between thevarious dimensions of a test are ofinterest as it is important that a test’ssub-scales are relatively independentof each other, thus demonstratingthat they are measuring distinct con-structs.
Table 3 demonstrates that thecorrelations between the OIP+Personal Work Needs sub-scales arefairly modest in size, indicating thatthese dimensions are assessing differ-ent personality characteristics. Thereare however some interesting pat-terns of correlations between theseOIP+ scales. One is the moderatelyhigh correlation between Need forVariety and the Needs for People &Control. This suggests that risk-takers are fairly gregarious peoplewho like to assert their personalityover others.
In addition, the OIP+ dimensionNeed for Control is positively corre-lated with the needs for Variety,Stability and People. Thus, assertiveindividuals tend to be emotionallystable, extraverted types, who arenot frightened to take risks in theirpersonal life. This cluster would beexpected given the nature of theNeed for Control dimension.
Table 4 shows modest correlationsbetween most of the vocational inter-est scales which implies that thescales are indeed measuring fairlyindependent interest areas.
As with the personal work needsthere are a number of interesting,and expected, patterns to be found inthe table. For example there is amoderately strong correlationbetween the Logical and Scientificinterest scales. This is only to beexpected given the emphasis manyscientific disciplines place on logicalanalysis and computational models.Caring correlates fairly well with theArtistic dimension and hardly at allwith Scientific, Practical and Logicalinterests, demonstrating thepeople/objects split one would expectfrom these interests.
Table 5 shows that, for the mostpart, very small correlations existbetween the OIP+ vocational inter-ests and personal work needs. Thissuggests that these two parts of theOIP+ are indeed measuring differentaspects of the personality. Of all theinterest dimensions, the Persuasivescale appears to be the most closelyrelated to the personal work needs.Thus an interest in persuasive rolesinvolving convincing communicationis correlated fairly strongly withassertive, extraverted, risk-takingpersonality traits. This is not unsur-prising, as success in a persuasiverole probably to a great extentdepends very much on an individ-ual’s personality. The extravertedqualities indicated by the Need forPeople are also moderately associat-ed with an interest in caring andhelping, once again, not a particular-ly surprising finding. There is also atendency for people who express aninterest in logical/computationalareas to be fairly phlegmatic types,able to be assertive, and take chargeof other people.
CONSTRUCT VALIDITY
cl
OIP+ Interests
1 Persuasive2 Scientific3 Practical4 Administrative5 Caring6 Creative7 Logical
Table 4: Correlations between OIP+ Vocational Interests (n = 2556)
1
1.00.18.17.23.23.44.30
2
.181.00.54.29.09.13.52
3
.17
.541.00.20.09.12.46
4
.23
.29
.201.00.13.08.53
5
.23
.09
.08
.131.00.38
-.02
6
.44
.13
.12
.08
.381.00.06
7
.30
.52
.46
.53-.02.06
1.00
OIP+ Work Needs
1 Need for Variety2 Need for Stability3 Need for Structure4 Need for People5 Need for Control
Table 3: Correlations between OIP+ Personal Work Needs (n = 2556)
1
1.00.25.15.41.43
2
.251.00-.26.35.44
3
.15-.261.00-.02-.23
4
.41
.35-.021.00.52
5
.43
.44-.23.52
1.00
OIP+ Work Needs
Need for VarietyNeed for StabilityNeed for ChangeNeed for PeopleNeed for Control
Table 5: Correlations between OIP+ Interests & Work Needs (n = 2556)
Pers.
.44
.38-.09.56.71
Sci.
.18
.25-.02.04.23
Prac.
.32
.37-.14.12.29
Admin
-.01.26
-.14.11.30
Caring
.13
.16
.02
.39
.10
Art.
.26
.05
.14
.28
.20
Log.
.25
.39-.18.17.45
OIP-Pers Persuasive Interests OIP-Nur Caring InterestsOIP-Sci Scientific Interests OIP-Art Creative InterestsOIP-Prac Practical Interests OIP-Log Logical InterestsOIP-Admin Administrative Interests
cmTHE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENOIP+ & 15FQ
A total sample of 1971 completedboth the 15FQ and the OIP+ as partof selection and assessment proce-dures with a diverse number oforganisations. The OIP+ comprisestwo sections, personal work needsand vocational interests. These arereported separately.
Table 6 presents the correlationswith 15FQ and OIP+ PersonalWorks Needs. For each of the fiveOIP+ dimensions, one or more corre-sponding 15FQ correlates is found.OIP+ Variety is strongly related to15FQ Enthusiastic. OIP+ Stability ishighly correlated with all 15FQ anxi-ety scales. OIP+ Structure is relatedto 15FQ Detail Conscious and OIP+People to each of the 15FQExtraversion dimensions. FinallyOIP+ Control is most closely relatedto 15FQ Assertive.
As might be expected, as 15FQdoes not measure interests, the corre-lations between 15FQ and OIP+Vocational Interests, reported inTable 7, are only very modest inmagnitude. Only three of the interestareas appear to relate to personalitytraits. People who are interested inPersuasive roles tend to be more out-going, Assertive, Socially Bold andEnthusiastic. There is a small ten-dency for those who are interested inadministrative work to be Detail-conscious. Finally, interest in artisticand creative activities is positivelyrelated to 15FQ Intuitive andConceptual, both measures of cre-ative tendencies.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OIP+& THE JUNG TYPE INDICATOR
A total sample of 1,971 completedboth JTI and OIP+ as part of anassessment procedure with a diversenumber of organisations. As can beseen from Table 8, extraversion onthe JTI correlated quite strongly withthe OIP+ needs for variety, changeand people, exactly those needswhich one would predict forExtraverts. Extraverts showed aninterest in Persuasive roles involvingthe communication of information aswell as in those activities centred onother people. Intuitives, as indicatedon the SN scale, showed the need forVariety and Change which would beexpected given the questioning,exploring nature of those peopleplaced at the N end of this dimen-sion. Intuitives were also highlyinterested in Artistic pursuits, again,this is in line with the definition ofIntuitives. Feeling types tended to below scorers on Stability, a measure ofemotional resilience and self-confi-dence, while scoring highly on needfor Change, which would indicatesome lack of emotional self-control.There was also a fairly high correla-tion between Feeling types andArtistic interests, an expression ofthe sensitive emotionality of Feelingtypes. Finally, Perceptive types withtheir emphasis on spontaneity andflexibility tend to score highly on theOIP+ needs for Variety and Change.As would be expected of the sponta-neous Perceptives they showed a dis-like of Administrative tasks such asclerical and financial work.
cn
15FQ Scale
OutgoingCalm-stableAssertiveEnthusiasticDetailedSocially BoldIntuitiveSuspiciousConceptualRestrainedSelf-doubtingRadicalSelf-sufficientDisciplinedTense-drivenDistortion
Table 6: Correlations between 15FQ and OIP+ Work Needs (N=1971)
need forVariety
.23
.28
.45
.23
-.21
need forStability
.39
.54
.23
.22
.29
-.27
-.41
-.26
-.39.41
need forStructure
.23
.27
.42
.21
.29
.29
need forPeople
.49
.24
.25
.45
.51
-.51-.33
need forControl
.45
.39
.50
.44
.46
-.22.23
.24
15FQ Scale
OutgoingCalm-stableAssertiveEnthusiasticDetailedSocially BoldIntuitiveSuspiciousConceptualRestrainedSelf-doubtingRadicalSelf-sufficientDisciplinedTense-drivenDistortion
Table 7: Correlations between 15FQ and OIP+ Vocational Interests
Pers
.44
.30
.42
.47
.57
.16
.26
-.14
-.30.16.22.18
Scient
.13
.14
.13
.14
Pract
.15
.15
-.21
.14
Admin
.15
.22
.29
.15
.23
.17
Nur
.23
.21
.15-.16.16
-.26
Art
.16
.22
.28
.44
.48
.24
Log
.18
.26
.25
.15
.22
.14
.13
.17
.22
OIP+ Scale
VarietyStabilityStructurePeopleControl
PersuasiveScientificPracticalAdministrativeNurturingArtisticLogical
Table 8: Correlations between JTI andOIP+ (n=1971)
EI
-.21-.23-.15-.57-.24
-.38.13
-.25-.18.10
SN
.16
-.22
.17
.40
TF
-.30-.24
-.13
.15
.24-.10
JP
.22
-.35
-.15
.13
EI Extraversion-IntroversionSN Sensing-IntuitionTF Thinking-FeelingJP Judgement-Perception
coTHE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OIP+ VOCATIONAL INTERESTS AND HOLLAND’S VPI
A sample of 108 undergraduate stu-dents completed both OIP+ andHolland’s VPI as part of a validationexercise.
As can be observed from Table 9,some very strong, meaningful corre-lations emerge. The VPI Realisticscale correlates strongly with OIP+Practical which is as expected. It alsoregisters marginal correlations withOIP+ Scientific and Logical, thussupporting the notion of the Realisticinterest reflecting a technologicalbias. Holland’s Investigative scalecorrelates above 0.7 with OIP+Scientific, pointing to near equiva-lence in measurement focus. Equally,both the Artistic interest scales inOIP+ and VPI are correlated at 0.76which would suggest that these twoscales are virtually inter-changeable.The VPI scale Enterprising fails tofind a direct equivalent in the OIP+,although it correlates positively withOIP+ Administrative and Persuasiveand inversely with Scientific, whichappears to reflect what might beexpected as qualities of the entrepre-neur. Finally, VPI Conventional cor-relates with OIP+ Administrative ata level which reflects that the contentof OIP+ Administrative encompassesaspects of financial administrativework which is not part of the VPIscale.
The correlations with VPI person-ality scales (Table 10) are not asclear as the previous. Some interest-ing associations are observed. VPISelf-Control correlates negativelywith OIP+ Variety and Practical.While the former appears to makesense on the basis of OIP+ Varietyreflecting a need for excitement andeven risk-taking, the explanation forthe latter is not immediately obvious.VPI Masculinity-Femininity corre-lates negatively with Nurturing andArtistic, suggesting that those withhigh scores on Masculinity are lessinclined to express preferences forthese types of activities. VPI Statusregisters a moderately high correla-tion with OIP+ Persuasive, suggest-ing that people who perhaps seethemselves as being able to commu-nicate well and convince others tendto endorse higher status professions.Finally, there exists within the VPIan Infrequency scale, the primarypurpose of which is to examinewhether the respondent may haverandomly or inattentively completedthe questionnaire. This is based onscoring rarely endorsed itemresponses. This scale registers amoderate negative correlation withOIP+ Artistic, the explanation forwhich is not immediately apparent.
cpOIP+ Scale
VarietyChangeStructurePeopleControlPersuasiveScientificPracticalAdministrativeNurturingArtisticLogical
Multiple R
Table 9: Correlations between OIP+ scales and Holland’s VPIInterest Scales
R
.24
.53
.32
I
.73
.37
.32
A
-.27
.27
.76-.20
S
.38
.66
-.25
E
.24
.26
.36-.35
.42
C
.57
.57 .75 .80 .70 .65 .62
R Realistic S SocialI Investigative E EnterprisingA Artistic C Conventional
OIP+ Scale
VarietyChangeStructurePeopleControlPersuasiveScientificPracticalAdministrativeNurturingArtisticLogical
Table 10: Correlations between OIP+ and VPI additional scales.
SELFCONT
-.38
.22
-.39
MASCFEM
.28
-.43-.45.32
STATUS
.21
.21
.41
.31
INFREQ
-.25
-.32
cqTHE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OIP+ INTERESTS AND THE ROTHWELL-MILLER INTEREST BLANK
The Rothwell-Miller Interest Blankasks respondents to rank-ordercareers in the order in which theyfind them interesting. Careers arepresented in groups of twelve jobs,with eight lists in all. It is usuallysuggested that the top two andbottom two jobs selected reflect thehigh and low areas of vocationalinterest.
Table 11 shows strong relation-ships for similar interests on the twotests. Just as importantly there arenegative relationships betweenincompatible interests. Thus it canbe seen that there is a strong rela-tionship between the OIP+ Artisticscale and the R-M Aesthetic, as wellas sizeable correlations with Literaryand Musical interests. The OIP+Artistic is also negatively associatedwith the R-M Computational andScientific scales, which would beexpected given the nature of thesetwo interest areas. Two R-M interestsfail to correlate well with similarlynamed OIP+ interests. In the case of
the OIP+ Practical scale, this showsa fairly large relationship with the R-M Mechanical but not with the R-MPractical. The reasons for this lie inthe definitions of these two scales,the OIP+ Practical is much moremechanically oriented than craft ori-ented, while the reverse is true of theR-M practical.
There is also a fairly small rela-tionship between the OIP+ and R-Mpersuasive scales. The reason for thisprobably lies in the way the scalesare constructed on the two tests. TheOIP+ Persuasive interest scale asksquestions about a person’s liking forvarious persuasive behaviours whilethe Rothwell-Miller simply presentsa list of jobs which are assessed torequire persuasive skills.
cr
OutdoorMechanicalComputationalScientificPersuasiveAestheticLiteraryMusicalSoc. Serv.ClericalPracticalMedical
Table 11: Correlations Between OIP+ Interests & Rothwell-Miller
Pers.
.21
Sci.
.55
-.32
Prac.
.54
-.49
Admin
-.32
.48
-.31.41
Nurt.
-.41-.59-.31-.37
.55
Art.
-.45-.47
.71
.41
.43
Logical
.51
-.44.30
csRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OIP+ AND OPP
A sample of 108 undergraduate stu-dents completed both the OIP+ andthe Occupational Personality Profileas part of a validation exercise.
A number of notable correlationsare evident from Table 12, providingparticular support for those OIP+scales measuring personal needs,with less congruence observed withOIP+ interest scales. Firstly, bothneed to Control and Persuade (OIP+Control and Persuasive) correlatewith OPP Assertive. The 0.65 corre-lation with OIP+ Control is clearlydemonstrating that this scale is mea-suring a disposition towards forcefultask-orientation. OIP+ Structure,which assesses need for order anddiscipline, correlates negatively withOPP Detailed-Flexible, which is as itshould be. Both OIP+ Stability andPeople register 0.74 correlations withOPP Phlegmatic and Gregarious,demonstrating that these scales aremeasuring aspects of emotional sta-bility and Extraversion respectively.The only OIP+ personal work needthat fails to converge with the OPP isVariety. The small tendencies thatare observed (Assertive, Flexible andOptimistic sic. Internal Locus ofControl) are in the expected direc-tion, reflecting a belief in overcomingobstacles, people and disregard fororder and correctness, but no more.
As far as the OIP+ vocationalinterest scales are concerned, anumber do find strong congruence
with OPP counter-parts. The moststriking is the -.82 correlationbetween OIP+ Artistic and OPPAbstract-Pragmatic. This exception-ally high correlation, would be goodsupport if achieved as an estimate ofreliability for a single scale i.e., thesame items administered on twooccasions. This does comment per-haps more on the OPP than theOIP+. Although OIP+ items are mostclearly vocationally-orientated, theOPP Abstract-Pragmatic itemsappear to be covering the sameground, with items that, on the faceof it, appear to be more focused onpersonal disposition. The questionthat remains is whether this scalewould be better classified as aninterest, rather than a personalitytrait.
OIP+ Practical finds no clear OPPequivalent, although the OIP+Administrative interest scale doescorrelate marginally with OPPDetailed and Pragmatic. OIP+Nurturing registers an elevated cor-relation with OPP Gregarious andOIP+ Logical correlates marginallywith OPP Pragmatic andPhlegmatic.
ctOIP+ Scale
VarietyChangeStructurePeopleControlPersuasiveScientificPracticalAdministrativeNurturingArtisticLogical
Table 12: Correlations between OIP+ andOPP scales.
ASRT
.24
.32
.65
.50
FLEX
.22
-.51
-.30
TRUS
.41
.21
PHLE
.74
.35
.30
.21
.26
-.29.28
GREG
.74
.31
.26
.44
PERS
.44
.47
.72
.25
CONT
-.30
-.32
EXTE
-.28-.42
-.23
-.29
PRAG
.29
.30
-.82.32
ASRT Empathic-AssertivePERS Genuine-PersuasiveFLEX Detailed-FlexibleCONT Composed-ContestingTRUS Cynical-TrustingEXTE Optimistic-PessimisticPHLE Emotional-PhlegmaticPRAG Abstract-PragmaticGREG Reserved-Gregarious
dkRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OIP+ WORK NEEDS & 16PF
A sample of 47 people, all traineecareer officers, completed both theOIP+ and the 16 Personality Factorquestionnaire. The table below pre-sents the significant correlationsbetween the OIP+ Work Needs andthe 16PF.
Table 13 provides support for thedefinitions of the OIP+ PersonalWork Needs. It can be seen that theNeed for Change scale correlatespositively with both F (Enthusiastic)and H (Bold), and negatively with G(Expedient). These factors wouldseem to fit well the description of theOIP+ Need for Change. The OIP+
stability scale correlates with anumber of 16PF scales which lendcorroborative evidence as to thenature of this scale. Thus C(Emotionally Stable), O (Self-assured) and Q4 (Relaxed) all sug-gest a scale which is measuringstability. Need for Structure corre-lates highly with G (Conscientious)and Q3 (Following Self-Image) bothof which deal with rule-followingbehaviour. Need for People correlateshighly with F (Enthusiastic), H(Bold) and Q2 (Group Oriented) allof which suggest this OIP+ scale isconcerned with the Extravert traits.
dlChange
.49-.34.32
Stability
.42
.38
.45
-.31-.59
-.59
Struct
-.63
-.54-.57.36
People
.46
.48
-.35
-.48
Control
.49
-.41
Table 13: Correlations between OIP+ Work Needs and 16PF
ABCEFGHILMNOQ1Q2Q3Q4FG
dmFACTOR ANALYSIS OF THEOIP+ SCALES
A factor analysis of the total norma-tive database for the OIP+ was car-ried out to investigate the underlyingstructure of the OIP+. AnOrthogonal analysis with PrincipalComponents extraction andNormalised Varimax rotation of theresulting factors was carried out.
As can be seen from the tablebelow, there would seem to be afairly logical separation of the vari-ous OIP+ scales across the four fac-tors. The loadings on Factor 1suggest that this factor is primarilyconcerned with control and manipu-lation of relationships. Thus individ-uals scoring high on factor 1 wouldbe highly persuasive, extraverted,assertive types. Factor 2 is concernedwith tasks rather than with people.Individuals scoring highly on thisfactor would have little interest inrelationships being much more con-cerned with practical or theoreticalissues. An inspection of the loadingsof Factor 3 would seem to indicatethat this factor is concerned withfairly bureaucratic matters. Thus,people scoring highly on this factorwould be resistant to change, enjoyadministrative duties, dislike takingrisks and be of a fairly phlegmaticdisposition. The final factor is pri-marily concerned with the caring,creative themes. Unlike Factor 1,which is basically a manipulative,Machiavellian interest in others,Factor 4 deals with an interest inhelping other people. People high onthis factor would not be as extravert-ed as the Factor 1 type, but theirinterest in others would perhaps bemore genuine.
OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS ANDTHE OIP+ FACTOR STRUCTURE
The above factor structure should,if it is more than a mathematicalartefact, discriminate betweengroups of jobs described by the vari-ous factors. To investigate whetherthis was the case, the OIP+ norma-tive database was searched for jobswhich could easily be described byone of these four categories. Oncefour job groups had been identifiedthe average stanine profile for eachjob compared to the general popula-tion was calculated.
FACTOR STRUCTURE OFTHE OIP+
dnOIP+ Scale
Need for VarietyNeed for StabilityNeed for ChangeNeed for PeopleNeed for ControlPersuasiveScientificPracticalAdministrativeCaringCreativeLogical% Variance Explained
Table 14: OIP+ (n=2556) factor pattern loadings
I
.67
.52
.74
.81
.80
23.2
II
.32
.84
.76
.49
.7619.6
III
-.47.36-.77
.51
11.7
IV
.35
.83
.69
12.6
doOIP+ Profile for Persuasive OccupationsThe graph below gives the average profile for jobs classified within theFactor 1 category, which was described as being concerned with those occu-pations dealing with controlling and manipulating others. The profile showslarger than average needs for change, while indicating that emotional stabili-ty is lower than that found in the general population. As would be expected,vocational interest in persuasive roles is higher than generally found, whilean interest in nurturing roles is correspondingly low.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
CHA STA STR PEO CON PER SCI PRA ADM NUR ART LOG
Figure 1: OIP+ Profile for Persuasive Occupations
dpOIP+ Profile for Practical RolesFigure 2 shows the average profile for individuals classified as belonging toFactor 2 occupations –those concerned with tasks rather than with people. Ascan be seen, this profile shows a larger than average need for structure, withlower than average needs for people and control. This reflects the nature ofmany practical occupations with their emphasis on structures and details,having less to do with other people or the need to control them. This profileshows high levels of scientific, practical and logical interests, all areas inwhich tasks are likely to be considered more important than people. This iscorroborated by the low level of interest displayed in nurturing roles
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
CHA STA STR PEO CON PER SCI PRA ADM NUR ART LOG
Figure 2: OIP+ Profile for Practical Roles
dqOIP+ Profile of Bureaucratic RolesThe figure below displays the average profile of those interested in adminis-trative roles. As can be seen, there is a low level of need for change in thisprofile, coupled with a high level of need for structure. Such a combinationindicates an individual who would dislike taking risks, requiring a fairlystructured, rule-governed environment. There is also a fairly low level ofneed for control, indicating that such an individual might feel more comfort-able receiving orders than giving them. There is a below average interest inpractical, scientific pursuits and in nurturing roles. A high level of interest inadministrative matters is shown, as expected, with an above average interestin logical matters.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
CHA STA STR PEO CON PER SCI PRA ADM NUR ART LOG
Figure 3: OIP+ Profile of Bureaucratic Roles
dr
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
CHA STA STR PEO CON PER SCI PRA ADM NUR ART LOG
Figure 4: OIP+ Profile of Caring Roles
OIP+ Profile of Caring RolesFigure 4 displays the average profile for occupational roles classified asbelonging to the Factor 4 category. As can be seen there is a below averageneed for control and change, combined with an above average need for struc-ture and people. Thus, the work needs suggest an individual who has a gen-uine liking for people and little desire to control them, and who requires afairly structured, safe environment. The profile shows below average levels ofinterest in persuasive, scientific, practical, administrative and logical roleswith a high level of interest in nurturing roles. Thus, for these individuals,their primary concern is with the nurturing, caring issues and little interestwill be displayed in anything which does not relate to these issues.
ds
3BEFORE STARTING THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Put candidates at their ease by giving information about yourself, the purposeof the questionnaire, the timetable for the day, if this is part of a wider assess-ment programme, and how the results will be used and who will have accessto them. Ensure that you and other administrators have switched off mobilephones etc.
The instructions below should be read out verbatim and the same scriptshould be followed each time the OIP is administered to one or more candi-dates. Instructions for the administrator are printed in ordinary type.Instructions designed to be read aloud to candidates incorporate a greyshaded background, italics and speech marks.
If this is the first or only questionnaire being administered, give an introduc-tion as per or similar to the following example:
“From now on, please do not talk among yourselves, butask me if anything is not clear. Please ensure that anymobile telephones, pagers or other potential distractions areswitched off completely. We shall be doing theOccupational Interest Profile which has no time limit,however, most people take about 20 minutes. During thetest I shall be checking to make sure you are not makingany accidental mistakes when filling in the answer sheet. Iwill not be checking your responses.”
WARNING: It is most important that answer sheets do not go astray. Theyshould be counted out at the beginning of the test and counted in again at theend.
ADMINISTRATIONINSTRUCTIONS
ekContinue by using the instructions EXACTLY as given. Say:
DISTRIBUTE THE ANSWER SHEETS
Then ask:
“Has everyone got two sharp pencils, an eraser, some roughpaper and an answer sheet.”
Rectify any omissions, then say:
“Print your surname, first name and title clearly on the lineprovided, followed by your age and sex. Please inserttoday’s date which is [ ] on the ‘Comments’ line”
Walk around the room to check that the instructions are being followed.
WARNING: It is vitally important that test booklets do not go astray. Theyshould be counted out at the beginning of the session and counted in again atthe end.
DISTRIBUTE THE BOOKLETS WITH THE INSTRUCTION:
“Please do not open the booklet until instructed.”
Remembering to read slowly and clearly, go to the front of the group and say:
“Please open the booklet and follow the instructions for thistest as I read them aloud.” (Pause to allow booklets to be opened).
This is a questionnaire concerning your interests,preferences and feelings about a range of things.
You are asked to rate yourself on a scale from 1 to 5 oneach question. When you have chosen the answerappropriate for YOU, record this by blackening thecorresponding box on the answer sheet.
Ratings:
1 2 3 4 5Strongly Agree In Disagree Strongly
Agree between Disagree
1. I like to watch the news on TV.
elIf you strongly agreed with this statement, you would fullyblacken box 1 against question 1 on your answer sheet.”
Check for understanding of the instructions so far, then say:
“When answering the questions, please remember thefollowing:
Do not spend too much time pondering over the answer toeach question. The information given in a question may notbe as full as you would wish, but answer as best you can.
Please try to avoid the middle (In between) answerwherever possible.
Be as honest and truthful as you can. Don’t give an answerjust because it seems to be the right thing to say.
Make sure you answer every question, even those which donot seem to apply to you.
If you wish to change an answer, please erase it and insertyour new answer.”
Then say very clearly:
“Is everybody clear about how to do this test?”
Deal with any questions appropriately, then say:
“Please begin”
Answer only questions relating to procedure at this stage, but enter in theAdministrator’s Test Record any other problems which occur. Walk aroundthe room at appropriate intervals to check for potential problems. Wheneverybody has completed the questionnaire:
COLLECT ANSWER SHEETS & TEST BOOKLETS, ENSURING THATALL MATERIALS ARE RETURNED (COUNT BOOKLETS & ANSWERSHEETS)
Then say:
“Thank you for completing the Occupational InterestProfile.”
4REFERENCESAllport, G. W. (1934) Personality: APsychological Interpretation. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Budd, R. J. (1991). Manual for the15FQ. Letchworth, Herts: PsytechInternational.
Budd, R. J. (1991). Manual for theOPP. Letchworth, Herts: PsytechInternational.
Budd, R. J. (1991). Manual for theJTI. Letchworth, Herts: PsytechInternational.
Campbell, D. P. (1971). Handbookfor the Strong Vocational InterestBlank. Stanford: Stanford UniversityPress.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficientalpha and the internal structure oftests. Psychometrica, 16, 297-334
Holland, J. L. (1975). Manual forthe Vocational Preference Inventory.Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologists Press.
Kline, P. (1993). Personality: ThePsychometric View. London,Routledge.
Kuder, G. F. (1956). Examiner’sManual for the Vocational Form-C.Chicago, Illinois: Science ResearchAssociates.
Miller, K.M. (1968). Manual for theRothwell-Miller Interest Blank.Windsor, Berks: The NFER-NelsonPublishing Company.
Galton, F. (1884). HereditaryGenius, London MacMillan.
thetechnicalmanual
administrationinstructions
2instructions
BEFORE STARTING THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Put candidates at their ease by giving information about yourself, the pur-pose of the questionnaire, the timetable for the day, if this is part of a widerassessment programme, and how the results will be used and who will haveaccess to them. Ensure that you and other administrators have switched offmobile phones etc.
The instructions below should be read out verbatim and the same scriptshould be followed each time the OIP is administered to one or more candi-dates. Instructions for the administrator are printed in ordinary type.Instructions designed to be read aloud to candidates incorporate a greyshaded background, italics and speech marks.
If this is the first or only questionnaire being administered, give an introduc-tion as per or similar to the following example:
“From now on, please do not talk among yourselves, butask me if anything is not clear. Please ensure that anymobile telephones, pagers or other potential distractions areswitched off completely. We shall be doing theOccupational Interest Profile which has no time limit,however, most people take about 20 minutes. During thetest I shall be checking to make sure you are not makingany accidental mistakes when filling in the answer sheet. Iwill not be checking your responses.”
WARNING: It is most important that answer sheets do not go astray. Theyshould be counted out at the beginning of the test and counted in again atthe end.
Continue by using the instructions EXACTLY as given. Say:
DISTRIBUTE THE ANSWER SHEETS
Then ask:
“Has everyone got two sharp pencils, an eraser, some roughpaper and an answer sheet.”
Rectify any omissions, then say:
“Print your surname, first name and title clearly on the lineprovided, followed by your age and sex. Please inserttoday’s date which is [ ] on the ‘Comments’ line”
Walk around the room to check that the instructions are being followed.
WARNING: It is vitally important that test booklets do not go astray. Theyshould be counted out at the beginning of the session and counted in again atthe end.
3instructions
DISTRIBUTE THE BOOKLETS WITH THE INSTRUCTION:
“Please do not open the booklet until instructed.”
Remembering to read slowly and clearly, go to the front of the group and say:
“Please open the booklet and follow the instructions for thistest as I read them aloud.” (Pause to allow booklets to be opened).
This is a questionnaire concerning your interests,preferences and feelings about a range of things.
You are asked to rate yourself on a scale from 1 to 5 oneach question. When you have chosen the answerappropriate for YOU, record this by blackening thecorresponding box on the answer sheet.
Ratings:
1 2 3 4 5Strongly Agree In Disagree Strongly
Agree between Disagree
1. I like to watch the news on TV.
If you strongly agreed with this statement, you would fullyblacken box 1 against question 1 on your answer sheet.”
Check for understanding of the instructions so far, then say:
“When answering the questions, please remember thefollowing:
Do not spend too much time pondering over the answer toeach question. The information given in a question may notbe as full as you would wish, but answer as best you can.
Please try to avoid the middle (In between) answerwherever possible.
Be as honest and truthful as you can. Don’t give an answerjust because it seems to be the right thing to say.
Make sure you answer every question, even those which donot seem to apply to you.
If you wish to change an answer, please erase it and insertyour new answer.”
4instructions
Then say very clearly:
“Is everybody clear about how to do this test?”
Deal with any questions appropriately, then say:
“Please begin”
Answer only questions relating to procedure at this stage, but enter in theAdministrator’s Test Record any other problems which occur. Walk aroundthe room at appropriate intervals to check for potential problems. Wheneverybody has completed the questionnaire:
COLLECT ANSWER SHEETS & TEST BOOKLETS, ENSURING THATALL MATERIALS ARE RETURNED (COUNT BOOKLETS & ANSWERSHEETS)
Then say:
“Thank you for completing the Occupational InterestProfile.”
