No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The authors compared the career considerations of a group of Asian American college students (52 men and 72 women) with a comparison group of Caucasian students (95 men and 151 women) using an Occupations List. The results revealed that Asian American students were more likely to have considered Investigative occupations and less likely to have considered Enterprising and Conventional occupations than were the Caucasian students. There were also differences in the career considerations of the two racial groups in terms of the prestige level and gender traditionality of the occupations. The implications of the findings for theory and practice are discussed.

The current article provides a review of the issues and problems in conducting career assessment with Asian-Americans. Existing information about the assessment of career interests, vocational development, and work values as they pertain to Asian-Americans are reviewed. Special issues in career assessment with Asian-Americans such as occupational segregation in vocational choices, educational attainment, and family influences are also discussed. The article also presents cross-cultural issues to be considered in the assessment and test interpretation process with Asian-American clients. Wherever appropriate, guidelines for effective career assessment with Asian-Americans are offered in the discussion. In the final section, directions for future research to increase our knowledge base on career assessment with Asian-Americans are presented and discussed.

This study examined the construct of the zone of acceptable alternatives proposed by Gottfredson (1981) in her developmental theory of career aspiration. College students (95 men and 151 women) responded to a demographic questionnaire, the Bern Sex-Role Inventory, and the Occupations List. The Occupations List consisted of 155 occupational titles, and subjects were asked to indicate whether they had considered each of the occupations and when. Occupations considered were coded with measurements of sex type and prestige, and 5 indicators were computed for each subject as multiple operational definitions of the zone of acceptable alternatives. Changes in some of the indicators over time were identified. Differences in the indicators were found to be related to gender and sex role orientation of the participants. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for Gottfredson's model and for counseling practice.This article is based on a doctoral dissertation submitted by S. Alvin Leung to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, under the direction of Lenore W. Harmon. The Graduate College and the College of Education of the University of Illinois funded part of this research.We thank Helen S. Farmer, Maurice T. Tatsuoka, and Gillian Stevens for serving as members of the dissertation committee, Barbara S. Plake for her valuable comments to an earlier draft of this article, and Jan Latona for coding occupations. The helpful reviews by Michael J. Patton and two anonymous reviewers were much appreciated.