Dimensionality of the Career Decision Scale: Methodological, Cross-Cultural, and Clinical Issues

Abstract

1991), we tested the relevance of this model using more robust estimation techniques. Our conclusions contradicted those of Shimizu et al. (1988) and Schulenberg et al. (1988): We concluded that the CDS has no clear dimensional structure and recommended the use of the total score and not that of its subscales. Shimizu, Vondracek, and Schulenberg (1994) is a reply to our paper in which these authors raise doubts about our methodological choices and present results of the reanalysis of their original data using our methodology. Here we explain why most of the critics of our methodology and interpretations are mislead, and why the results they got with the use of our methodology proves exactly the opposite of what they claim. We also review other matters discussed by Shimizu et al. (1988): cross-cultural comparison and clinical issues. We conclude by reasserting that the CDS is a reliable instrument for the measurement of career indecision level, but not of anything else because it has no clear dimensional structure. Over the last 15 years or so, there has been debate over the dimensionality of the Career Decision Scale (

Factorial Invariance of the Indecision Scale of the Career Decision Scale: A Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis

“…A four‐factor structure was identified initially (Osipow, Carney, & Barak, 1976), which included lack of confidence with decision making, perception of barriers to a career decision, perception of a conflict that involves two or more alternatives, and personal conflict. This structure was supported in other studies (Chartrand & Robbins, 1990; Schulenberg, Shimizu, Vondracek, & Hostetler, 1988; Shimizu, Vondracek, Schulenberg, & Hostetler, 1988; Vondracek, Hostetler, Schulenberg, & Shimizu, 1990), although issues were raised about its dimensional structure without additional theoretical and clinical knowledge (Laplante, Coallier, Sabourin, & Martin, 1994).…”

“…This structure was supported in other studies Vondracek, Hostetler, Schulenberg, & Shimizu, 1990), although issues were raised about its dimensional structure without additional theoretical and clinical knowledge (Laplante, Coallier, Sabourin, & Martin, 1994). Kelly and Lee (2002) investigated the dimensions of career indecision using exploratory factor analysis.…”

Personality, interests, and career indecision: a multidimensional perspective

“…Because later models do not utilize all items, this model was broken into multiple components. Model 1A utilizes all 16 CDS items (CDS items 3-18); Model 1B is based off the work of Laplante, Coallier, Sabourin, and Martin (1994) and Martin et al (1991) and uses items 3-9, 11, 12, and 15-18. The second model is based off Kelly and Lee's (2002) three-factor solution.…”

Career Indecision Levels Of Students Enrolled In A College Of Agriculture And Life Sciences

“…Indecision, Decidedness, Approach-Approach Conflict, and Barriers. Yet, Martin and colleagues (Laplante, Coallier, Sabourin, & Martin, 1994;Martin, Sabourin, Laplante & Coallier, 1991) contend that the CDS is unidimensional and that the use of four subscales is not appropriate.…”