Transcript שקופית 1 - huji.ac.il

Making Better
Career Decisions
Itamar Gati
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Parsons (1908)
Zytowski (2008)
2
Career Decision-Making Difficulties

One of the first steps in helping individuals
make a career decision is locating the
focuses of the difficulties they face in the
decision-making process

Relying on decision theory, Gati, Krausz,
and Osipow (1996) proposed a taxonomy
of career decision-making difficulties
3
Possible Focuses of
Career Decision-Making Difficulties
(Gati, Krausz, & Osipow, 1996)
During the Process
Prior to Engaging
in the Process
Lack of Readiness
due to
Lack of
Indecimotivation siveness
Lack of Information
about
Dysfunc- Cdm Self Occupations
tional process
beliefs
Ways of
obtaining
info.
Inconsistent
Information due to
Unreliable Internal
Info.
conflicts
External
conflicts
4
www.cddq.org :
5
Sample from the CDDQ
6
Among the salient difficulties is
“lack of information about the career
decision-making process” (4)
Three Levels of Difficulties (negligible, moderate, salient difficulty)
in the Ten Difficulty Categories and the Four Groups (N = 6192;
H-Hebrew, E-English, p-paper and pencil, I-Internet)
salient difficulty
moderate difficulty
no difficulty
H
H
E
E
H
H
E
E
H
H
E
E
H
H
E
E
H
H
E
E
H
H
E
E
H
H
E
E
H
H
E
E
H
H
E
E
H
H
E
E
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
p Ip I p Ip I p I p I p Ip I p Ip I p Ip I p Ip I p I p I p Ip I p Ip I
1
2
3
LP
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
7
Stages in the career
decision-making process
The PIC model (Gati & Asher, 2001)
separates the career decision-making
process into 3 distinct stages:
- Prescreening
- In-depth exploration
- Choice
8
Prescreening

Goal: Locating a small set (about 7) of
promising alternatives that deserve further, indepth exploration

Method: Sequential Elimination
9
A Schematic Presentation of the
Sequential Elimination Process
(within-aspects, across-alternatives)
Potential Alternatives
Aspects
a
b
1
2
3
4
.
.
.
.
N
(most
important)
(second in
importance)
c
.
n
Promising
Alternatives
10
Prescreening (cont.)

Method: Sequential Elimination

Locate and prioritize relevant aspects or
factors
 Explicate within-aspect preferences
 Eliminate incompatible alternatives
 Check list of promising alternatives
(Sensitivity analysis)
11
Prescreening (cont.)

Goal: Locating a small set (about 7) of promising
alternatives that deserve further, in-depth
exploration

Method: Sequential Elimination

Outcome: A short list of “verified”, promising
alternatives worth further, in-depth exploration
12
In-depth exploration

Goal: Locating alternatives that are not only
promising but indeed suitable for the individual

Method: collecting additional information, focusing
on one promising alternative at a time:
 Is
the occupation INDEED suitable for me?
 Am I suitable for the occupation?

Outcome: A few (e.g., 3-4) most suitable
alternatives
13
Choice

Goal: Choosing the most suitable alternative, and rankordering additional, second-best alternatives

Method:
 comparing
and evaluating the suitable alternatives
 pinpointing the most suitable one

Am I likely to actualize it?



if not - selecting second-best alternative(s)
if yes - Am I confident in my choice?
Outcome: The best alternative or a rank-order
of the best alternatives
14
MBCD
Making Better Career Decisions
MBCD is an Internet-based career planning
system that is a unique combination of

a career-information system
 a decision-making support system
 an expert system
Based on the rationale of the PIC model,
MBCD is designed to help deliberating
individuals make better career decisions
15
Making Better Career Decisions
http://mbcd.intocareers.org
16
However,
Although Internet-based, career-related
self-help sites are flourishing, these sites
vary greatly in quality
Therefore,
it is very important to investigate the utility
and validity of these self-help programs
So, the question is
Making Better Career Decisions
Does it really work?
17
MBCD’s Effect (Cohen’s d) on Reducing
Career Decision-Making Difficulties
(Gati, Saka, & Krausz, 2003)
0.8
0.72
0.65
d
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.31
0.3
0.2
0.11
0.1
0
Lack of
Readiness
Lack of
Information
Inconsistent
Information
Total CDDQ
18
Predictive Validity of MBCD: A 6-year follow-up
Frequencies of Occupational Choice Satisfaction
by “Acceptance” and “Rejection” of MBCD's Recommendations
(Gati, Gadassi, & Shemesh, 2006)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
16%
18%
low satisfaction
44%
medium satisfaction
high satisfaction
84%
38%
accepted
did not accept
recommendations
recommendations
19
Gender Differences in Directly Elicited and
Indirectly Derived Preferred Occupations
(279 Women + 79 Men, Mean Age=23; Gadassi & Gati, 2008)
Data from
participant:
2. Preferences in 31
career-related aspects
1. Directly Elicited
list of preferred
occupations
5. comparison
MBCD
Occupational
information
database
3. Matching
preferences
& database
4. Indirectly
Derived list of
recommended
occupations
20
Gender Differences in Directly Elicited and
Indirectly Derived Preferred Occupations
(279 Women + 79 Men, Mean Age=23; Gadassi & Gati, 2008)
Gender Dominance Ratings of Occupations
3.18
3.13
2.96
Men
Women
2.71
Indirectly Derived
Directly Elicited
Masculine
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
Feminine
21
Conclusions

Internet-based interactive systems, that
implement decision-theory, can help individuals
in making better career decisions

Career counseling may be viewed as decision
counseling, which aims at facilitating the clients'
decision-making process, and promotes better
career decisions

The challenge – how to incorporate quality selfhelp tools in the face-to-face counseling process
22
[email protected]
www.cddq.org
23
end
--
24
Perceived Suitability of the "Promising Alternatives" List
(N=693)
100%
90%
too long
80%
70%
60%
50%
suitable
40%
30%
too short
20%
10%
0%
2
3-4
5
6
7
8-10 11-15 16-25
26+
(n=23) (n=74) (n=71) (n=121) (n=236) (n=45) (n=40) (n=46) (n=37)
Number of Alternatives
(n - of users)
25
Summary of Major Findings

PIC is compatible with people’s intuitive ways of
making decisions (Gati & Tikotzki, 1989)

Most users report progress in the career decisionmaking process (Gati, Kleiman, Saka, & Zakai, 2003)
 Satisfaction
was also reported among those who did not
progress in the process
 Users are “goal-directed” – the closer they are to making a
decision, the more satisfied they are with MBCD

The list of “recommended” occupations are less
influenced by gender stereotypes (Gadassi & Gati, 2008)
26
27
The Career Decision-making
Difficulties Questionnaire (CDDQ)

The Career Decision-making Difficulties
Questionnaire (CDDQ) was developed to test this
taxonomy and serve as a means for assessing
individuals’ career decision-making difficulties

Cronbach Alpha internal consistency estimate of the
total CDDQ score ranged from .92 to .95

The proposed structure was empirically supported
(N=10,000)

For additional information – see www.cddq.org
--- the CDDQ is offered free of charge --28
Decision Status
Before and After the “Dialogue” with MBCD
Before the dialogue
After the dialogue
1
2
3
4
5
1- no direction
34
7
6
7
0
2 - only a general
direction
41
66
15
9
5
3 - considering a
few specific alternatives
27
58
84
30
6
4 - would like to examine
additional alternatives
23
51
35
54
6
5 - would like to collect
information about a
specific occupation
629- sure which
occupation to choose
9
20
21
41
28
3
0
1
9
16