TEMPORAL AND NOMOLOGICAL VALIDITY OF A CHILDHOOD CAREER EXPLORATION MEASURE

Íris M. Oliveira1a, Maria do Céu Taveira1b, & Erik J. Porfeli2c

1 Research Center on Psychology, University of Minho, Portugal

Learning and Achievement Unit, Career Development and Counseling Research Group2 Northeast Ohio Medical University, USA

a ioliveira@psi.uminho.pt b ceuta@psi.uminho.pt c eporfeli@neomed.edu

INTRODUCTIONChildhood career development is a dimensional and contextual process (Hartung,Porfeli, & Vondracek, 2005; Super, 1994). Career exploration is a main dimension ofchildhood career development and illustrates the child-context mutual dynamics(Araújo, 2009; Oliveira & Taveira, 2016; Vondracek, Ford, & Porfeli, 2014). Duringchildhood, career exploration seems to positively correlate with self-concept, internallocus of control, career planning, career self-efficacy and academic achievement (e.g.,Oliveira & Taveira, 2014; Schultheiss & Stead, 2004; Turner et al., 2006). Children’scareer exploration also impacts career adaptability, identity and attainment later on inlife (e.g., Lawson, Crouter, & McHale, 2015; Schmitt-Rodermund & Vondracek,1999). Focusing on middle school childhood, career exploration can be understood as aprocess of curiosity, use of exploratory resources and imagination of the self in futurelife roles. Self-report measures have been internationally used to assess middle schoolchildren’s career exploration. Still, limitations can be assigned to these measures, suchas lacking evidence of temporal and nomological validity. Portugal is also missing apsychometric-sound measure of middle school children’s career exploration, whichcould be useful to sustain research and early career interventions preparing children forchallenging environments (e.g., Taveira, 1999; Watson, Nota, & McMahon, 2015).

PurposeThis study intended to offer evidence of temporal and nomological validity for a newmeasure of Portuguese middle school children’s career exploration, the ChildhoodCareer Exploration Inventory (CCEI), constructed by the authors. To attain such agoal, middle school children were followed across two occurrences of measurement in5th-grade. Two research hypotheses were tested:• H1 The CCEI will exhibit configural and metric invariance over time;• H2 The CCEI will present positive and statistically significant correlations with

career and academic variables over time.

METHODParticipantsChildren were recruited with a non-probabilistic intentional sampling method. Thefinal sample included 429 children of both genders (48.3% girls), from northern(69.5%) and central (30.5%) Portugal (Mage = 10.23, SD = .50).

MeasuresQuestionnaire of Identification (QID; Araújo, 2009). The QID collected demographicand academic information, namely children’s average grades at each wave.

Childhood Career Exploration Inventory (CCEI). The CCEI includes 12 itemsanswered in a Likert-type scale (1 “Strongly disagree”, 5 “Strongly agree”).Exploratory and confirmatory results supported the CCEI hierarchical factor structureand invariance for genders. From the first to the second waves, reliability ranged from.52 to .72 in Curiosity, .65 to .71 in Exploratory Resources, .64 to .74 in Self in LifeRoles (i.e., 1st-order factors), .79 to .86 in Career Exploration (i.e., 2nd-order factor).

Childhood Career Development Scale (CCDS; Schultheiss & Stead, 2004; adapted byOliveira & Taveira, 2014). Nineteen items answered in a Likert-type scale (1 “Stronglydisagree”, 5 “Strongly agree”), grouped in the Self-Concept, Locus of Control andPlanning subscales were used. Reliability ranged from .88 to .87 in Self-Concept, .80to .86 in Locus of Control, .88 to .91 in Planning, from the first to the second waves.

Multidimensional Scales of Perceived Self-Efficacy (MSPSE; Bandura, 1990; adaptedby Teixeira & Carmo, 2004). Twenty-six items answered in a Likert-type scale (1 “Noteasy at all”, 5 “Very easy”) assessed self-efficacy expectations for academics, leisureand extracurricular tasks. Reliability ranged from .93 to .94 in the two waves.

Procedures• Consents were obtained at the governmental, school, family and children level.• Data was collected at the classroom setting by researchers and psychologists;• QID was completed based on school records;• Confidentiality was guaranteed.

Data analysesIBM AMOS and SPSS version 22.0 for Windows were used. Less than 2% of missingvalues were treated with the Expectation-Maximization method (Tabachnick & Fidell,2013). Due to multivariate non-normality, maximum likelihood estimation methodwith bootstrapping was used (Kline, 2004). Results without less than 2% of outlierswere reported. Good model fit was suggested by Bollen-Stine chi-square (B-S χ2) p >.05, χ2/degrees of freedom (df) < 2, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker-LewisIndex (TLI) > .90, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) between .05and .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Invariance was suggested by the CFI and RMSEAdifferences (Δ) > (-.01) and < (.05) (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Pearson correlationcoefficients tested associations between the CCEI, career and academic variables.

RESULTS

CCEI factorial invariance over timeThe hierarchical factor model yielded a good fit to the data of first (Bollen-Stine χ2 p =.002, χ2/df = 2.90, CFI = .90, TLI = .87 RMSEA = .07) and second waves (Bollen-Stineχ2 p = .002, χ2/df = 2.82, CFI = .94, TLI = .92 RMSEA = .07), thus being a baseline.Temporal stability of 1st and 2nd-order factors was separately tested (Keefer, Holden, &Parker, 2013). Configural and metric invariance over time was found (see Table 1).

Table 1. CCEI configural and metric invariance over time

CCEI nomological networkPositive and statistically significant relations among the CCEI, self-concept, locus ofcontrol, planning and self-efficacy expectations were found at each wave. No relationswere found between the CCEI scores and academic achievement (see Table 2).

Table 1. CCEI configural and metric invariance over timeExploration at each wave

CorrelationSelf-efficacy Self-concept Locus of

controlPlanning Academic achievement

1st wave .30** .22*** .45*** .45*** .012nd wave .36** .19*** .46*** .43*** -.07

Models B-S p value

χ2/df CFI TLI RMSEA ΔCFI ΔRMSEA

Curiositya. Configural .008 2.01 .97 .94 .05 ---- ----b. Metric .012 1.88 .97 .95 .05 .001 .003

Exploratory Resourcesa. Configural .10 1.54 .98 .97 .04 ---- ---b. Metric .18 1.42 .99 .98 .03 -.001 .004

Self in Life Rolesa. Configural .002 2.22 .88 .86 .05 ---- ---b. Metric .002 2.13 .89 .87 .05 -.002 .002

Career Explorationa. Configural .002 3.54 .96 .93 .08 ---- ---b. Metric .002 3.26 .96 .94 .07 .001 .007

** p < .01. *** p < .001

DISCUSSIONThis study offered evidence of the CCEI temporal and nomological validity. H1 wassupported, as results suggested the stability of the CCEI factorial structure in 5th-grade.The CCEI can, therefore, be used with 5th-graders. Still, a better fit was found at theend than beginning of 5th-grade. This might be illustrative of children’s developmentaland school challenges in the transition to 5th-grade, impacting career exploration. H2was partially supported, as the CCEI was positively associated with career variables.Children who are actively engaged in career exploration seem to present high self-knowledge, internal locus of control over their actions, acknowledge the importance ofplanning for the future and feel confident in academic, leisure and extracurricularactivities. These findings are consistent with extant literature (e.g., Oliveira & Taveira,2014; Schultheiss & Stead, 2004; Super, 1994) and support the CCEI nomologicalnetwork. However, no relations between the CCEI and academic achievement werefound. These results are inconsistent with previous studies (e.g., Turner et al., 2006).Future research may examine the CCEI relation with academic processes, such asengagement in school. Implications for research and practice can be retrieved from thiswork. First, the CCEI temporal and nomological validity can continue to beinvestigated, for example, through 6th-grade. The CCEI predictive validity can becovered, while examining the predictive role of children’s career exploration inadaptability, identity and attainment later on in life (Lawson et al., 2015; Schmitt-Rodermund & Vondracek, 1999). Second, this work may stimulate practical efforts tofoster students’ career exploration and development over the school years, thuspreparing them for future challenges (Taveira, 1999; Watson et al., 2015). The CCEIcan also sustain the evaluation of efficacy of such promotional career practices.

REFERENCESAraújo, A. (2009). Antecedentes, dinamica e consequentes do desenvolvimento vocacional na infancia [Antecedents, dynamics and consequents of childhood career development]. Unpublished Doctoral

Dissertation. Braga, Portugal: University of Minho.Bandura, A. (1990). Multidimensional scales of perceivedacademic efficacy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Hartung, P.J., Porfeli, E.J., & Vondracek, F.W. (2005). Child vocational development:Areview and reconsideration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 385-419. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.006Kline, R.B. (2004). Beyond significance testing: Reformingdata analysis methods in behavioral research. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.Lawson, K., Crouter, A., & McHale, S. (2015). Links between family gender socialization experiences in childhood and gendered occupational attainment in young adulthood. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 90, 26-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.07.003Oliveira, I.M., & Taveira, M.C. (2014). Avaliação do desenvolvimento vocacional na infancia: Versão portuguesa da Childhood Career Development Scale [Assessment of childhood career

development: Portuguese version of the Childhood Career Development Scale]. Saarbrucken, Deutschland: Novas Edições Académicas.Oliveira, I.M., & Taveira, M.C. (2016). Desenvolvimento vocacional na infancia: Contributos para uma abordagem integradora [Childhood career development: Contributes for an integrative approach].

In N.L. Pereira-Silva, A. Barbosa, & M. Rodrigues (Eds.), Pesquisas emdesenvolvimento humanoe educac ão (pp. 355-384). Curitiba, Brazil: CRVEditions.Schmitt-Rodermund, E., & Vondracek, F.W. (1999). Breadth of interests, exploration, and identity development in adolescence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 298-317. doi:

10.1006/jvbe.1999.1683Schultheiss, D., & Stead, G.B. (2004). Childhood Career Development Scale: Scale construction and psychometric properties. Journal of Career Assessment, 12, 113–134. doi:

10.1177/1069072703257751Super, D. (1994). A life span, life space perspective on convergence. In M.L. Savickas, & R.W. Lent (Eds.), Convergence in career development theories: Implications for science and practice (pp. 63-

74). Palo Alto, CA: CPP Books.Tabachnick,B.G.,&Fidell,L.S.(2013).Usingmultivariatestatistics(6th Ed.).Boston:AllynandBacon.Taveira, M.C. (1999). Desenvolvimentovocacional nos primeiros anos da adolescencia: Teoria e prática. Saberes da Casa Pia de Lisboa, 9, 33-43.Teixeira, M.O., & Carmo, A.M. (2004). Estudos com a versão Portuguesa da Escala Multidimensional da Autoeficácia Percebida de Bandura (MSPSE) [Studies with the Portuguese version of

Bandura’s Multidimensional Scales of Perceived Self-Efficacy (MSPSE)]. In C. Machado, L. Almeida, M. Goncalves & V. Ramalho (Eds.). Avaliação Psicológica: Formas e contextos (198-203).Braga: Psiquilíbrios.

Vondracek, F.W., Ford, D.H., & Porfeli, E.J. (2014). A living systems theory of vocational behavior and development. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers.Watson, M., Nota, L., & McMahon, M. (2015). Evolving stories of child career development. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 15, 175-184. doi: 10.1007/s10775-015-

9306-6