Content uploaded by Andreas Hirschi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andreas Hirschi on Apr 29, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A. Hirschi&A. Herrmann: The My Vocational Situation ScaleSwissJ.Psychol. 72 (1) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG,Bern
Original Communication
Assessing Difficulties in Career
Decision Making Among Swiss
Adolescents with the German My
Vocational Situation Scale
Andreas Hirschi1and Anne Herrmann2
1University of Lausanne, Institute of Psychology, Switzerland
2Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Department of Experimental Business Psychology, Germany
Swiss Journal of Psychology, 72 (1), 2013, 33–42
DOI 10.1024/1421-0185/a000097
Abstract. Assessing problems in career decision making among adolescents is important for career guidance and research. The present
study is the first to investigate among Swiss adolescents the factor structure and convergent validity in relation to personality of the
German-language adaptation of the My Vocational Situation Scale. Two preliminary studies (N= 217) suggested that using a 5-point
Likert scale response format would increase scale reliability. The confirmatory factor analyses in the main study with two cohorts (n=
341, eighth grade; n= 303, eleventh grade) confirmed that four main factors, which assess problems with identity, decision making,
information, and perceived barriers, underlie the data. The barriers factor was differentiated into aspired vocation and personal situation.
Construct validity was supported by significant relationships between favorable personality characteristics (emotional stability, extraver-
sion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, generalized self-efficacy, and internal locus of control) and fewer problems. The results suggest
that the vocational identity and barriers scales can be fruitfully applied to research on and the practice of career counseling with adoles-
cents.
Keywords: career assessment, career decision making, vocational identity, personality
Adolescence is an important time of vocational preparation
for future career development (Super, 1990). One core
component of career preparation during adolescence is the
achievement of a well-developed career-choice readiness,
which can be defined as the readiness and ability of a per-
son to successfully engage in the career decision-making
process and reach a well-founded career decision (Phillips
& Blustein, 1994). Several international studies have indi-
cated that having a high career-choice readiness and choice
clarity in adolescence is related to various components of
well-being and adaptation (Creed, Prideaux, & Patton,
2005; Skorikov & Vondracek, 2007). The assessment and
prevention of career decision-making difficulties is there-
fore a major focus in career development research and
counseling practice (Brown & Rector, 2008). However,
there is a shortage of empirically evaluated and supported
German-language measurement scales in this area for ad-
olescents.
In this context, the goals of the present study are (1) to
investigate for the first time the applicability of the Ger-
man-language version of one the world’s most frequently
applied scales for the assessment of career decision-making
difficulties, the My Vocational Situation Scale (MVS; Hol-
land, Daiger, & Power, 1980), with Swiss adolescents; and
(2) to examine the extent to which individual differences
in the hereby assessed difficulties are related to more fun-
damental personality dispositions of adolescents.
The My Vocational Situation Scale
Assessing problems in career decision making has tradi-
tionally been an important component of career counseling
and vocational guidance to identify specific targets for in-
terventions in order to promote career development. The
My Vocational Situation Scale (MVS; Holland, Daiger et
al., 1980) is one of the world’s most frequently applied
measures for assessing difficulties in career decision mak-
ing. It assesses career-related problems in three areas: (1)
problems with vocational identity, (2) lack of career infor-
mation or training, and (3) environmental or personal bar-
riers in career decision making (Holland, Gottfredson, &
Power, 1980). Since its publication, the scale has been ex-
Swiss J. Psychol. 72 (1) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
tensively evaluated and applied in career research and
counseling practice in areas such as assessing the degree of
readiness of a client in order to assign the appropriate kind
and level of treatment (e.g., Sampson, Peterson, Reardon,
& Lenz, 2000), as an outcome measure when evaluating
the effectiveness of career interventions (Whiston, Sexton,
& Lasoff, 1998), or for assessing theoretically important
constructs in career development research (e.g., Multon,
Wood, Heppner, & Gysbers, 2007). Apart from these ap-
plications as a quantitative measurement scale, the MVS
can also be applied in counseling practice as a qualitative
treatment tool in that the meaning of answers to individual
items can be discussed between counselor and client (Hol-
land, Johnston, & Asama, 1993).
Jörin, Stoll, Bergmann, and Eder (2004) published a
German-language adaptation of the MVS. The scale mea-
sures the same three areas of career decision-making prob-
lems as the original version with 18 items stating possible
problems in career decision making (e.g., “I am not sure
about my strengths and weaknesses, interests, and abili-
ties”). Answers are provided on a three-point scale with
scale values 0 (not true), 1 (partially true), and 2 (true),
higher values indicating that more problems were reported.
Originally, the 18-item vocational identity subscale was di-
rectly adapted from the original English version, but was
reduced to 10 items based on the results of scale analyses
in the process of scale development research with second-
ary, high school and university students, and adults. The
items for the other two subscales (information, two items,
and barriers, six items) were not directly derived from the
original scale but generated by Jörin and colleagues based
on considerations about possible problems in the career de-
cision-making process in these two areas. Jörin Fux (2006)
evaluated the adapted scale with two samples consisting of
high-school students, university students, and adults. Based
on exploratory factor analyses with these study partici-
pants, two reliable factors were identified for the scale: one
factor tapping into problems related to personal aspects
(i.e., identity and information) and one factor tapping into
problems related to problems in the environment (i.e., bar-
riers). Jörin Fux also reported some findings supporting the
construct validity of the scale by showing, for example,
significant relationships between reported problems and a
smaller range of considered career alternatives, more need
for counseling, and lower interest profile differentiation.
Two potentially important areas of application of the
German-language scale are research and counseling prac-
tice with adolescents. In the German-speaking countries of
Switzerland, Germany, and Austria, there is a strong focus
in the educational system on vocational education and
training (VET) (Heinz, Kelle, Wirtzel, & Zinn, 1998; Hir-
schi, 2010; Seifert & Eder, 1991). For example, in Switzer-
land, about two-thirds of all students pursue VET after fin-
ishing compulsory school at the end of ninth grade (Swiss
Federal Statistical Office, 2010). This means that students
have to become engaged in career planning and decision
making comparatively early and, more generally, that ado-
lescence is an important phase of career preparation and
development. As a result, research (Heckhausen & Toma-
sik, 2002; Hirschi & Läge, 2007b; Neuenschwander & Gar-
rett, 2008; Pinquart, Juang, & Silbereisen, 2003) and coun-
seling practice (Marty, Jungo, & Zihlmann, 2011) in Ger-
man-speaking countries has focused on the adolescent
career decision-making process and its difficulties.
Unfortunately, the German-language version of the
MVS has not yet been examined regarding its applicability
to this potentially important research and practice group
(i.e., younger adolescents facing their transition from
school to VET). Moreover, all results reported by Jörin Fux
(2006) were based on earlier versions of the published scale
which consisted of only 16 items (one item for each of the
subaspects, information and barriers, was added later). The
first aim of the present study was therefore to investigate
the applicability of the German-language MVS to adoles-
cents with respect to reliability and factor structure using
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
Our second goal was to provide additional information
about the construct validity in terms of the nomological
validity of the scale with this group (Peter, 1981). While
there is some support for the nomological validity of the
scale, no research has ever investigated how individual dif-
ferences in the assessed career decision-making difficulties
are related to the adolescents’ personality dispositions. Un-
derstanding the relationship between personality traits and
problems in career decision making would also have im-
portant consequences for the theoretical understanding of
adolescent career preparation and counseling intervention
practice.
Personality and Career
Decision-Making Difficulties
There is solid evidence that personality dispositions are re-
lated to various aspects of vocational and organizational
behavior (Tokar, Fischer, & Mezydlo Subich, 1998). Re-
garding career decision making, research has confirmed
that difficulties in this area are significantly related to per-
sonality traits such as trait negative affectivity, neuroticism,
and negative self-evaluations in terms of career-specific
and generalized self-efficacy and control beliefs (e.g., Di
Fabio, 2006; Lounsbury, Hutchens, & Loveland, 2005;
Saka & Gati, 2007). This pattern was mirrored in findings
with the English-language MVS, which showed across
many studies that a high score in vocational identity was
related to being more extroverted, more conscientious, and
less neurotic (Holland et al., 1993). Although we are not
aware of research linking the MVS to personality traits in
adolescence, research investigating the English version of
the MVS scale with adolescents showed positive relation-
ships between higher vocational identity scores and critical
consciousness (i.e., the capacity to recognize and overcome
34 A. Hirschi & A. Herrmann: The My Vocational Situation Scale
Swiss J. Psychol. 72 (1) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
sociopolitical barriers) (Diemer & Blustein, 2007), career
search activities (Gushue, Clarke, Pantzer, & Scanlan,
2006; Gushue, Scanlan, Pantzer, & Clarke, 2006), career
decision-making self-efficacy beliefs (Gushue, Scanlan et
al., 2006), but not family interaction patterns (Hargrove,
Creagh, & Burgess, 2002). Extending this research, we hy-
pothesize that individual differences in personality dispo-
sitions predict differences in scores in career decision-mak-
ing difficulties as assessed using the German-language
MVS with Swiss adolescents. Specifically, based on exist-
ing research with the German and the English versions of
the MVS, we expect that adolescents reporting more prob-
lems in career decision making in terms of vocational iden-
tity, information, and barriers are more neurotic, less extra-
verted, less conscientious, have more negative generalized
self-efficacy beliefs, and more external control beliefs.
Method
Participants
Four groups (N= 860) of adolescents from the German-
speaking part of Switzerland participated in the study. Two
groups participated in two preliminary studies. Preliminary
Study 1 included 148 students (82 boys = 55%) in the
eighth (91%) and ninth grade, their ages ranging from 13
to 16 years (M= 14.3, SD = 0.7). Participants in Prelimi-
nary Study 2 were 68 students in the eighth grade (34%
boys). Age was not assessed for this group.
For the main study, two additional groups were included.
The first group consisted of Swiss secondary school stu-
dents at the beginning of the eighth grade (n= 341, aged
12–16 years, M= 14.1, SD = 0.7, 50% girls, 82% of Swiss
nationality, the rest mostly from southeastern Europe). The
majority (63%) attended a school type with advanced re-
quirements (Sekundarschule); the others attended one with
basic requirements (Realschule). The second group con-
sisted of 303 high school students in the eleventh grade
(aged 15 to 20 years, M= 17.4, SD = 1.0; 69% girls; 81%
Swiss nationals, the rest mostly from southeastern Europe).
Sixty-eight percent (n= 206) were doing a vocational ap-
prenticeship; the others attended a high school (Gymnasi-
um) and were preparing for college.
The My Vocational Situation Scale –
German-Language Version
The German-language adaptation of the MVS by Jörin et
al. (2004) was used. The 18-item scale (e.g., “I am not sure
about my strengths and weaknesses, interests, and abili-
ties”) consists of four subscales tapping problems with
identity (seven items), decision making (three items), in-
formation (two items), and perceived barriers to career de-
velopment (six items). The components of identity and de-
cision making can be combined into a 10-item scale repre-
senting Holland, Daiger et al.’s (1980) notion of vocational
identity. Answers in the original format used in Preliminary
Study 1 are provided on a 3-point Likert scale with scale
values 2 (true), 1 (partially true), and 0 (not true); higher
scores indicate more reported problems. Jörin Fux (2006)
reported reliability estimates (Cronbach’s α) of .83 for the
10-item vocational identity scale and .81 for the 6-item bar-
riers scale derived from samples of n= 643 and n= 797,
respectively, composed of high school students, university
students, and adults. In Preliminary Study 2 and the main
study a 5-point Likert scale instead of the original 3-point
scale was used with the responses including 1 (not true), 2
(mostly not true), 3 (partially true), 4 (mostly true), and 5
(true).
Big Five Personality Traits
Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Openness, and
Conscientiousness were assessed with the German-lan-
guage adaptation of the NEO-FFI (Borkenau & Ostendorf,
1993; Costa & McCrae, 1992). The scale consists of 60
statements (e.g., “I am not easily worried”) and answers
were provided on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree)to4(strongly agree) (Rost, Carstensen,
& von Davier, 1999). Support for the validity and applica-
bility of the scale for adolescents is provided by Lüdtke,
Trautwein, Nagy, and Köller (2004). Cronbach’s αfor the
present sample was .78 for Neuroticism, .75 for Extraver-
sion, .72 for Openness, .68 for Agreeableness, and .77 for
Conscientiousness.
Generalized Self-Efficacy (GSE) and Locus of
Control Beliefs
GSE and externality of control (EC) were assessed with the
Fragebogen zu Kompetenz- und Kontrollüberzeugungen
(FKK; Inventory for the Measurement of Self-Efficacy and
Externality, Krampen, 1991). The two constructs are mea-
sured by 16 items each (e.g., “I can determine very much
of what happens in my life”) and students are asked to in-
dicate on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very wrong)
to 6 (very true) how much the statements apply to them.
Support for the applicability and validity among adoles-
cents is provided by Krampen (1991). The αs within the
present sample were .70 for GSE and .86 for EC.
Procedure
All students completed the questionnaires in their class-
rooms under the supervision of their classroom teacher.
Since the use of the NEO-FFI with young adolescents pre-
sented some problems regarding inconsistent factor struc-
ture (Roth, 2002), it was applied only to the older students
A. Hirschi & A. Herrmann: The My Vocational Situation Scale 35
Swiss J. Psychol. 72 (1) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
in high school. The secondary school students received the
MVS and the FKK, and the high school students the MVS,
the FKK, and the NEO-FFI.
Results
Preliminary Analysis of Reliability
A first preliminary analysis (N= 148) was conducted to
estimate the reliability of the 10-item vocational identity
subscale with the original 3-point Likert scale. The results
showed that reliability (Cronbach’s α) was only α= .64
(90% CI .55–.72), which is significantly lower than the .83
reliability reported by Jörin Fux (2006). A second prelim-
inary study (N= 68) was conducted to investigate whether
changing the response scale to a 5-point Likert scale could
significantly improve the reliability. The results showed
that the reliability significantly increased to α= .82 (90%
CI .75–.88). These results led to the use of a 5-point Likert
scale, instead of the original 3-point scale, in the following
main study.
Main Analysis of Reliability
In the main study (N= 644), reliability estimates showed
α= .80 (90% CI .72–.87) for the 7-item identity subscale,
α= .58 (90% CI .52–.63) for the 3-item decision-making
subscale, α= .83 (90% CI .81–.85) for the 10-item voca-
tional identity scale, α= .44 (90% CI .35–.52) for the 2-
item information scale, α= .69 (90% CI .65–.72) for the
6-item barriers scale, and α= .85 (90% CI .83–.87) for the
total 18-item scale.
Data Analytical Approach for CFA
The first objective of the present study was to examine the
internal structure of the MVS questionnaire. Since a theo-
retical idea of the relationships between the assessed con-
structs already exists (Holland, Daiger et al., 1980) and the
structure of the questionnaire has been examined using
EFA (Jörin Fux, 2006), the use of CFA is indicated (Ull-
man, 2006). CFA requires the researcher to specify a priori
hypotheses about the structure based on existing theory and
that those be tested. It provides a stricter test of the factor
structure; thus, it is particularly well-suited for use after
certain ideas about the structure of the construct have been
theoretically developed and empirically examined using
EFA (van Prooijen & van der Kloot, 2001). In the present
study, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted with
Mplus 6.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 2010).
In the case of the MVS questionnaire, four factors were
proposed based on theory: (1) problems with identity, (2)
decision making, (3) information, and (4) perceived barri-
ers to career development (Holland, Daiger et al., 1980;
Jörin Fux, 2006). Consistent with this theory, Jörin Fux
(2006) extracted four factors when analyzing the German
version using EFA with oblique rotation. However, not all
items displayed their highest loadings on the theoretically
expected factor and hence the meaning of the four empiri-
cally derived factors differed from theory (Jörin Fux,
2006). To address this contradiction between theory and
exploratory empirical results, several models were tested
and compared in this study as outlined below. To begin, we
tested the following three models.
Model I
In a first step, and as proposed by the test publisher, a four-
factor model distinguishing between a 7-item identity fac-
tor, a 3-item decision-making factor, a 2-item information
factor, and a 6-item barriers factor was specified (Jörin Fux,
2006). All loadings of the 18 variables onto their respective
factor were freely estimated. All other parameters were
fixed to zero; hence, no cross-loadings were allowed.
Model II
The second model tested here is consistent with the four-fac-
tor solution of the EFA conducted by Jörin Fux (2006). The
aim here is to test whether results obtained in EFA can be
replicated in CFA, which presents a stricter approach to the
investigation of internal structure. When specifying a model
based on the results of an EFA, some simplification is re-
quired. Specifically, one has to decide which loadings are
high enough to be specified as free parameters in the model
and which are negligible and should therefore be constrained
to be zero. As one aims for a simple structure in both EFA
and CFA, the model was specified as follows: Items were
assigned to factors based on the highest loading obtained in
the EFA conducted by Jörin Fux (2006) and factors were
named according to our interpretation of the EFA results (see
Figure 1). The two additional items (12 and 17)were assigned
to the factor they belong to theoretically (i.e., information and
barriers, respectively) (Jörin Fux, 2006). All other parameters
were constrained to be zero and variables were only allowed
to load onto one factor even though some displayed second-
ary loadings in the exploratory analysis. Restricting any po-
tential cross-loadings was based on the rationale that this is
consistent with the scoring of the questionnaire where each
item is always assigned to one scale only. As the results of the
EFA were based on oblique rotation, the four factors were
allowed to covary in the CFA.
Model III
The third and most parsimonious model followed a sugges-
tion by Jörin Fux (2006) to group the items into two factors,
36 A. Hirschi & A. Herrmann: The My Vocational Situation Scale
Swiss J. Psychol. 72 (1) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
one containing the three subscales tapping into problems
with identity (seven items), decision making (three items),
and information (two items); and the second one compris-
ing the six items on perceived barriers to career develop-
ment. The first one represents internal aspects concerned
with the vocational situation whereas the latter one de-
scribes external issues in this context. The same approach
as with the previous model was used and items were as-
signed to factors based on their highest loading obtained in
the EFA conducted by Jörin Fux (2006) and were not al-
lowed to cross-load on the second factor.
Across all models, the covariances between the latent
variables were freely estimated, thus specifying oblique
models. In addition, the error variances of the variables
were never allowed to correlate because their existence
suggests that additional factors may be present that are not
currently specified in the model (James, Mulaik, & Brett,
1982).
To our knowledge this was the first attempt to fit CFA
models to the German version of the MVS questionnaire.
Previous applications of CFA have shown that it is not un-
common to find poor fit when attempting to confirm the
internal structure of a self-report questionnaire obtained by
EFA (e.g., Hopwood & Donnellan, 2010; Quilty, Oakman,
& Risko, 2006; Slocum-Gori, Zumbo, Michalos, & Diener,
2009). We had therefore planned to modify the best-fitting
of the three models described above if model fit was not
acceptable, thus changing from a confirmatory to an ex-
ploratory approach. The aim of this subsequent analysis
was twofold. Firstly, we wanted to establish what modifi-
cations are required to obtain acceptable model fit. Second-
ly, and more importantly, we wanted to explore the substan-
tive implications these modifications may have. In other
words, beyond the magnitude of modifications, the objec-
tive was to establish what structure of the construct the data
suggested. However, modifications were only to be applied
if they were conceptually sound as well as suggested by the
data to improve model fit. All modifications and their im-
pact on fit indices are discussed below.
The Factor Structure of the MVS
Before conducting the CFA, we assessed the univariate as
well as multivariate normality of the 18 MVS items with
an SPSS macro provided by DeCarlo (1997). The interpre-
tation of results for univariate normality was based on
guidelines by Curran, West, and Finch (1996), who found
skewness larger than 2.0 and kurtosis larger than 7.0 to be
problematic. In the present sample, only one item (Item 17)
displayed values above these cut-offs (2.32 for skewness).
However, the data also displayed multivariate nonnormal-
ity (Mardia test; Mardia, 1970) with a normalized coeffi-
cient of 33.68 (p< .001), which is much greater than the
cut-off of 3.00 suggested by Bentler (2005). To avoid the
issues caused when applying ML estimation to nonnormal
data, a robust estimation method available in Mplus (Mu-
thén & Muthén, 2010) was applied. This estimation method
is robust to nonnormality with regard to the estimation of
standard errors.
Next, the model fit of the factor models detailed above
was assessed. While none of the models achieved accept-
able fit according to all fit indices, the results suggest that
Model I (four-factor model) is the best model. However, as
Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis models. Model II: Four-factor structure consistent with results of the EFA conducted
by Jörin Fux (2006). Model Ia: Modified version of Model I in which two separate barriers factors (external and personal)
are specified. Model Ib: Modified version of Model I in which a hierarchical model with one higher-order barriers factor
is specified, which is defined by two latent subfactors (external and personal).
A. Hirschi & A. Herrmann: The My Vocational Situation Scale 37
Swiss J. Psychol. 72 (1) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
indices differ only slightly (especially between Model I and
II), a comparison of the three nonnested models based on
Akaike weights was conducted. This also allows comput-
ing the relative likelihood for each model (see Table 1). The
corrected AIC (AICC) rather than AIC was used when com-
puting Akaike weights because the ratio of sample size to
the numbers of model parameters was small (Burnham &
Anderson, 2010). The comparison showed that Model I is
about 4.5 times more likely (i.e., ωI/ωII = 0.82/0.18) than
Model II (three-factor model), the second-best model,
while Model III (two-factor model) is highly unlikely.
Given the strong support for Model I, subsequent mod-
ifications were only pursued for Model I. Rather than sim-
ply improving model fit by freeing parameters, we were
interested in finding out if the data support the theoretical
idea of the constructs. An examination of residual varianc-
es and modification indices showed that the barriers items
were particularly poorly represented by the imposed mod-
el. The error terms of the first and the last three items of
the barriers scale were highly correlated. However, re-
searchers are advised not to simply allow the error terms
of a congeneric set of indicator variables to correlate but
instead to identify substantial reasons for their occurrence
and modify the model accordingly (Rubio & Gillespie,
1995). The pattern of correlated error terms suggests that
an extraneous factor exists among the barrier items that was
not specified in the original model. As modifications
should not be data-driven but also make sense conceptual-
ly, the items of this scale were examined. Based on the item
content as well as the modification indices, one could pro-
pose that the barriers scale may actually consist of two as-
pects, the first three items describing barriers related to the
nature of the aspired vocation and the latter three referring
to difficulties arising from the individual’s personal situa-
tion. Thus, two alternative models were tested. In Model
Ia, two separate barriers factors were specified. For Model
Table 1
Fit indices of the confirmatory factor analyses (N = 712)
SB-χ²df SB-χ²/df CFI TLI RMSEA RMSEA 90% CI SRMR AICCω(AICC)
Model I 402.22 129 3.11 .895 .876 .055 (.049–.061) .053 35476.15 0.82
Model II 403.46 129 3.13 .895 .875 .055 (.049–.061) .054 35479.20 0.18
Model III 564.15 134 4.21 .835 .812 .067 (.061–.073) .061 35657.17 0.00
Model I 402.22 129 3.11 .895 .876 .055 (.049–.061) .053 35476.15 0.00
Model Ia 296.48 125 2.37 .934 .919 .044 (.037–.050) .046 35358.24 0.16
Model Ib 297.97 127 2.35 .934 .921 .043 (.037–.050) .046 35354.86 0.84
Notes. SB-χ² = Satorra-Bentler χ²; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation;
SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; AICC= corrected Akaike information criterion; ω(AICC) = corrected Akaike weights.
Table 2
Partial correlations, means, and standard deviations for the MVS scales and personality measures
Identity Decision Info Barriers VID MVS GSE EC MSD
Identity1– .59*** .48*** .44*** .96*** .89*** –.32*** .19*** 16.94 5.65
Decision1.47*** – .46*** .44*** .78*** .76*** –.37*** .39*** 7.07 2.43
Info1.41*** .44** – .45*** .52*** .76*** –.16** .22*** 4.60 1.73
Barriers1.28*** .30*** .31*** – .49*** .75*** –.20*** .34*** 11.87 3.66
VID1.95*** .73*** .48*** .32*** – .93*** –.37*** .28*** 24.01 7.34
MVS1.83*** .69*** .63*** .69*** .89*** – –.35*** .34*** 40.48 10.74
GSE2–.28** –.34*** –.23*** –.26*** –.34*** –.37*** ––––
EC2.36*** .45*** .33*** .31*** .44*** .48*** ––––
N3.19** .34*** .24** .13 .27*** .28*** ––––
E3–.18** –.17* –.19** –.08 –.20** –.20** ––––
O3.06.07.11–.01.08.07––––
A3–.12 –.02 –.17* –.14* –.10 –.16* ––––
C3–.29*** –.16* –.25*** –.15* –.29*** –.30*** ––––
M16.91 7.01 4.47 12.21 23.92 40.59 ––––
SD 5.06 2.36 1.70 4.04 6.49 9.63 ––––
Notes. Above diagonal: secondary school students (n= 341), below high-school students (1n=303,2n= 283, 3n=210:nvaries because not
all students filled out every scale or they did not fill out every scale correctly or completely)
VID = vocational identity; MVS = My Vocational Situation total score; GSE = generalized self-efficacy; EC = externality of control, N =
neuroticism; E = extraversion; O = openness; A = agreeableness; C = conscientiousness. *p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001.
38 A. Hirschi & A. Herrmann: The My Vocational Situation Scale
Swiss J. Psychol. 72 (1) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
Ib, a hierarchical structure was proposed in which one high-
er-order barriers factor was defined by two latent subfac-
tors (see Figure 1).
Both modified models achieved acceptable fit (see Table
1). Corrected Akaike weights were used in a subsequent
comparison with the original Model I. We found that Model
Ib is about five times more likely (i.e., ωIb/ωIa = 0.84/0.16)
than Model Ia. Model Ib is also more parsimonious than
Model Ia. The original Model I is highly unlikely based on
this comparison. In conclusion, our results showed that the
MVS applied with adolescents measures career decision-
making difficulties along four dimensions: (1) vocational
identity, (2) decision making, (3) information, and (4) bar-
riers regarding (i) aspired vocation and (ii) personal situa-
tion.
Relationship to Personality
In order to provide additional information about the valid-
ity of the MVS with adolescents, we calculated partial cor-
relations, controlling for age and gender, for the four dif-
ferent MVS scales and personality measures in terms of the
big five traits and generalized self-efficacy and locus of
control beliefs. The results in Table 2 largely confirmed our
hypotheses and research with the original version of the
MVS by showing that within both cohorts higher general-
ized self-efficacy beliefs were negatively related to and
more externality of control beliefs positively related to
more problems with identity, decision making, vocational
identity, information, and barriers. Among the cohort in
eleventh grade, higher neuroticism was positively related
to and more extraversion negatively related to more prob-
lems with identity, decision making, vocational identity,
and information, but not barriers. Openness was unrelated
to problems. More agreeableness was negatively related to
problems with barriers and information, but was unrelated
to identity, decision making, or vocational identity. Finally,
conscientiousness was negatively related to problems in all
domains.
Discussion
The results of the two preliminary studies showed that the
reliability of the vocational identity scale can be signifi-
cantly improved by applying a 5-point Likert response
scale instead of the originally proposed 3-point scale. Par-
ticularly for future research with adolescents, this strongly
recommends that the response format be adapted accord-
ingly. In the main studies, reliability estimates for the sub-
scales of identity, vocational identity, and barriers were
good to sufficient and allow their interpretation as quanti-
tative measures for practice and research. However, the
subscales of decision making and information only showed
modest reliability, which might be explained by their small
number of items. This suggests that they can be used in
practice as indicators of problems in those areas but may
not be appropriate as quantitative measures.
The confirmatory factor analysis supported the proposi-
tion that the MVS measures multiple, related factors of
problems in career decision making. Specifically, the re-
sults suggest that the German-language MVS assesses
problems in the areas of vocational identity, career decision
making, information, and barriers (Holland, Daiger et al.,
1980; Jörin Fux, 2006). However, we could not confirm
that the scale measures two factors, one referring to per-
sonal career decision-making difficulties and one to envi-
ronmental difficulties, as suggested by Jörin Fux (2006).
Moreover, our data showed that the barriers factor consists
of two related but separate factors – barriers concerning
one’s aspired vocation and barriers related to one’s personal
situation. This result confirms previous research on barriers
in career development which established that career barri-
ers are multifaceted (Swanson & Tokar, 1991).
The investigation of correlations with personality char-
acteristics supported the nomological validity of the MVS
for adolescents. In line with results obtained with the orig-
inal English-language version and other research on diffi-
culties in career decision making (e.g., Holland, 1997; Hol-
land et al., 1993; Lounsbury et al., 2005; Lucas & Epper-
son, 1990), reporting more problems in the MVS correlated
significantly with having less favorable personality dispo-
sitions.
The influence of personality traits on career develop-
ment generally, and career decision making specifically, is
well-established in the literature (Seibert, 2001; Tokar et
al., 1998). According to the trait perspective of personality
(McCrae et al., 2000), this general relationship can be ex-
plained in the way that traits represent endogenous basic
tendencies of thinking, feeling, and acting, which in a dy-
namic process of selection of and reactions to external in-
fluences lead to the development of characteristic adapta-
tions, or culturally-conditioned phenomena, including ca-
reer attitudes and self-concepts. Conversely, the dynamic
socioanalytic perspective on personality (Caspi, Roberts,
& Shiner, 2005) would suggest that people select environ-
ments that correlate with their personality traits and are ex-
posed to social influences that in turn affect personality
functioning. As such, significant correlations might also be
the result of career attitudes affecting personality charac-
teristics over time.
As expected, less generalized self-efficacy and more ex-
ternal control beliefs were related to more reported prob-
lems in all areas. This supports previous research findings
that perceptions of control and power in one’s life facilitate
career decision making (e.g., Lucas & Epperson, 1990).
One possible reason is that they affect career decision-mak-
ing self-efficacy, a specific form of efficacy beliefs that
represent a person’s perceived ability to successfully mas-
ter the career decision-making task (Betz, 2007). Research
shows that lack of career decision-making self-efficacy is
an important predictor of difficulties in career decision
A. Hirschi & A. Herrmann: The My Vocational Situation Scale 39
Swiss J. Psychol. 72 (1) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
making (Creed, Patton, & Prideaux, 2006), presumably be-
cause it inhibits career commitment and career exploration
(Gushue, Clarke et al., 2006).
Supporting previous research (Jin, Watkins, & Yuen,
2009; Lounsbury et al., 2005; Lounsbury, Tatum, Cham-
bers, Owens, & Gibson, 1999), the results also suggest a
significant relationship between conscientiousness and
fewer reported problems in career decision making. Career
preparation and (preliminary) career decision making are
important developmental tasks for most adolescents and
young adults in Switzerland (Fend, 1991). Hence, students
who are generally more conscientious, as compared to stu-
dents who feel less involved and invest less effort, can be
expected to also be more engaged in and devoted to this
task, which in turn facilitates their career decision making.
This logic is supported by significant relationships of con-
scientiousness and active career exploration in other sam-
ples (Rogers, Creed, & Ian Glendon, 2008).
Neuroticism and less extraversion were also related to
more problems in identity but not barriers. This supports
previous research findings that those traits are particularly
related to difficulties in vocational identity and decision
making (Holland, 1997; Holland et al., 1993; Lounsbury et
al., 2005). In a meta-analysis, Brown and Rector (2008)
showed that different personality characteristics from the
neuroticism cluster (i.e., trait negative affect, trait anxiety,
depression, dysfunctional thinking) form a specific factor
that explains career indecision that they named “indecisive-
ness/trait negative affect.” One reason why neuroticism
predicts problems in career decision making might thus be
its relationship to dysfunctional thinking patterns concern-
ing career development or anxiety about one’s vocational
future.
The relationship to extraversion might be based on the
significant relationship between extraversion and energy
and proactivity (McCrae & Costa, 1999); hence, extraver-
sion could facilitate active self- and environmental explo-
ration which is in turn related to more progress in career
decision making (Hirschi & Läge, 2007a). Moreover, ca-
reer exploration entails self-reflection and environmental
exploration (Zikic & Hall, 2009), which might be more dif-
ficult for students low in extraversion because they might
lack the energy to actively explore their environment or feel
uncomfortable about novel social interactions that often ac-
company acquiring new career information.
Contrary to some studies (Lounsbury et al., 1999, 2005),
agreeableness was not related to identity. On the other
hand, it was correlated with fewer problems with barriers.
This suggests that students who are better able to go along
with people in their environment also receive more support
for their career. However, overall, the results support the
rather weak relationship between agreeableness and career
decision making in the literature. Similarly, openness was
not significantly related to problems in any area. Louns-
bury et al. (2005) reported a weak but significant relation-
ship between openness and career decidedness among US
12th graders, but not among 7th and 10th graders. Howev-
er, Holland et al.’s (1993) literature overview also did not
clearly support the relationship between openness and vo-
cational identity, which confirms the generally weak rela-
tionship between these two constructs.
To summarize, our results support the validity of the
MVS scores by showing a number of significant relation-
ships with personality characteristics that are in line with
theoretical assumptions and previous research.
Implications for Research
As for research, the results imply that the German-language
version of the MVS represents a valid and economical
measure of problems in career decision making among ad-
olescents. Specifically, the 7-item vocational identity scale
and the 6-item barriers scale can be used as reliable mea-
sures of distinct but related problems in career decision
making in research studies. Research efforts might include
investigating additional factors that affect difficulties in ca-
reer decision making, such as social support, parental in-
fluence, or environmental constraints. Moreover, research-
ers should investigate the outcomes of problems in career
decision making with respect to the transition to vocational
educational and training, university education, or regular
paid employment.
Implications for Practice
As for practice, the results of the present study imply that
the German-language version of the MVS can be rightfully
used with adolescents. All four subaspects of identity, de-
cision making, information, and barriers can be taken into
account as separate but related factors of problems in career
decision making when interpreting the MVS scores. How-
ever, one should refrain from comparing scores in the de-
cision-making and information subscales across individ-
uals due to their restricted reliability. Based on the prob-
lems reported in the different areas, the general readiness
of a client for career decision making can be assessed and
specific interventions targeting salient problems can be ad-
ministered.
References
Bentler, P. M. (2005). EQS structural equations program manual.
Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Betz, N. E. (2007). Career self-efficacy: Exemplary recent re-
search and emerging directions. Journal of Career Assessment,
15, 403–422. doi 10.1177/1069072707305759
Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). NEO-Fünf-Faktoren Inven-
tar (NEO-FFI) nach Costa und McCrae [NEO Five-Factor
Personality Inventory (NEO-FFI) according Costa and Mc-
Crae]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
40 A. Hirschi & A. Herrmann: The My Vocational Situation Scale
Swiss J. Psychol. 72 (1) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
Brown, S. D., & Rector, C. C. (2008). Conceptualizing and diag-
nosing problems in vocational decision making. In S.D.
Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychol-
ogy (Vol. 4, pp. 392–407). New York, NY: Wiley.
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2010). Model selection and
multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic ap-
proach (2nd [reprint] ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
Caspi, A., Roberts, B.W., & Shiner, R.L. (2005). Personality de-
velopment: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psycholo-
gy, 56, 453–484.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory profes-
sional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Re-
sources.
Creed, P., Patton, W., & Prideaux, L.-A. (2006). Causal relationship
between career indecision and career decision-making self-effi-
cacy: A longitudinal cross-lagged analysis. Journal of Career
Development, 33, 47–65. doi 10.1177/0894845306289535
Creed, P. A., Prideaux, L. A., & Patton, W. (2005). Antecedents
and consequences of career decisional states in adolescence.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 397–412. doi 10.1016/j.
jvb.2004.08.008
Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of
test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confir-
matory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29. doi
10.1037/1082-989x.1.1.16
DeCarlo, L. T. (1997). On the meaning and use of kurtosis. Psy-
chological Methods, 2, 292–307. doi 10.1037/1082-
989x.2.3.292
Di Fabio, A. (2006). Decisional procrastination correlates: Per-
sonality traits, self-esteem or perception of cognitive failure?
International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guid-
ance, 6, 109–122. doi 10.1007/s10775-006-9000-9
Diemer, M.A., & Blustein, D. L. (2007). Vocational hope and vo-
cational identity: Urban adolescents’ career development.
Journal of Career Assessment, 15, 98–118. doi 10.1177/
1069072706294528
Fend, H. (1991). Identitätsentwicklung in der Adoleszenz (Bd. 2)
[Identity development in adolescence (Vol. 2)]. Bern, Switzer-
land: Huber.
Gushue, G. V., Clarke, C.P., Pantzer, K.M., & Scanlan, K.R. L.
(2006). Self-efficacy, perceptions of barriers, vocational identity,
and the career exploration behavior of Latino/a high school stu-
dents. The Career Development Quarterly, 54, 307–317.
Gushue, G. V., Scanlan, K. R. L., Pantzer, K. M., & Clarke, C. P.
(2006). The relationship of career decision-making self-effica-
cy, vocational identity, and career exploration behavior in Af-
rican American high school students. Journal of Career De-
velopment, 33, 19–28. doi 10.1177/0894845305283004
Hargrove, B.K., Creagh, M. G., & Burgess, B. L. (2002). Family
interaction patterns as predictors of vocational identity and ca-
reer decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Be-
havior, 61, 185–201.
Heckhausen, J., & Tomasik, M. J. (2002). Get an apprenticeship
before school is out: How German adolescents adjust voca-
tional aspirations when getting close to a developmental dead-
line. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 199–219.
Heinz, W. R., Kelle, U., Wirtzel, A., & Zinn, J. (1998). Vocational
training and career development in Germany: Results from a
longitudinal study. International Journal of Behavioral Devel-
opment, 22, 77–101.
Hirschi, A. (2010). Swiss adolescents’ career aspirations: Influ-
ence of context, age, and career adaptability. Journal of Career
Development, 36, 228–245. doi 10.1177/0894845309345844
Hirschi, A., & Läge, D. (2007a). Holland’s secondary constructs
of vocational interests and career choice readiness of second-
ary students. Journal of Individual Differences, 28, 205–218.
doi 10.1027/1614-0001.28.4.205
Hirschi, A., & Läge, D. (2007b). The relation of secondary stu-
dents’ career-choice readiness to a six-phase model of career
decision making. Journal of Career Development, 34,
164–191. doi 10.1177/0894845307307473
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vo-
cational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Holland, J.L., Daiger, D.C., & Power, P. G. (1980). My vocation-
al situation. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Holland, J. L., Gottfredson, D. C., & Power, P. G. (1980). Some
diagnostic scales for research in decision making and person-
ality: Identity, information, and barriers. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 39, 1191–1200.
Holland, J. L., Johnston,J. A., & Asama, N. F. (1993). The Vocation-
al Identity Scale: A diagnostic and treatment tool. Journal of
Career Assessment, 1, 1–11. doi 10.1177/106907279300100102
Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M.B. (2010). How should the in-
ternal structure of personality inventories be evaluated? Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 332–346.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. (1982). Causal analysis:
Models, assumptions and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Jin, L., Watkins, D., & Yuen, M. (2009). Personality, career deci-
sion self-efficacy and commitment to the career choices pro-
cess among Chinese graduate students. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 74(1), 47–52.
Jörin, S., Stoll, F., Bergmann, C., & Eder, D. (2004). Explorix®:
Das Werkzeug zur Berufswahl und Laufbahnplanung [Explo-
rix: The tool for career choice and career planning]. Bern,
Switzerland: Huber.
Jörin Fux, S. (2006). Persönlichkeit und Berufstätigkeit [Person-
ality and work]. Göttingen, Germany: Cuviller.
Krampen, G. (1991). Fragebogen zu Kompetenz- und Kontroll-
überzeugungen (FKK) [Inventory for the Measurement of
Self-Efficacy and Externality]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Lounsbury, J.W., Hutchens, T., & Loveland, J.M. (2005). An in-
vestigation of Big Five personality traits and career decided-
ness among early and middle adolescents. Journal of Career
Assessment, 13, 25–39. doi 10.1177/1069072704270272
Lounsbury, J.W., Tatum, H. E., Chambers, W., Owens, K. S., &
Gibson, L. W. (1999). An investigation of career decidedness
in relation to “Big Five” personality constructs and life satis-
faction. College Student Journal, 33, 646–652.
Lucas, M. S., & Epperson, D. L. (1990). Types of vocational un-
decidedness: A replication and refinement. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 37, 382–388.
Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., Nagy, G., & Köller, O. (2004). Eine
Validierungsstudie zum NEO-FFI in einer Stichprobe junger
Erwachsener [A validation of the NEO-FFI in a sample of
young adults]. Diagnostica, 50, 134–144.
Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kur-
tosis with applications. Biometrika, 57, 519–530.
Marty, R., Jungo, D., & Zihlmann, R. (Eds.). (2011). Berufswahl-
freiheit: Ein Modell im Spannungsfeld zwischen Individuum
und Umwelt [The freedom to choose an occupation: A model
A. Hirschi & A. Herrmann: The My Vocational Situation Scale 41
Swiss J. Psychol. 72 (1) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
between individual and environment]. Dübendorf, Switzer-
land: SDBB.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of
personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139–153). New
York, NY: Guilford.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebic-
kova, M., Avia, . . . Smith, P. B. (2000). Nature over nurture:
Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173–186.
Multon, K. D., Wood, R., Heppner, M.J., & Gysbers, N.C.
(2007). A cluster-analytic investigation of subtypes of adult
career counseling clients: Toward a taxonomy of career prob-
lems. Journal of Career Assessment, 15, 66–86.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Authors.
Neuenschwander, M.P., & Garrett, J.L. (2008). Causes and con-
sequences of unexpected educational transitions in Switzer-
land. Journal of Social Issues, 64(1), 41–58.
Peter, J.P. (1981). Construct validity: A review of basic issues and
marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 18,
133–145.
Phillips, S. D., & B lustein, D. L. ( 1994). Readin ess for career
choices: Planning, exploring, and deciding. Career Develop-
ment Quarterly, 43, 63–74.
Pinquart, M., Juang, L. P., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2003). Self-effi-
cacy and successful school-to-work transition: A longitudinal
study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 329–346.
Quilty, L. C., Oakman, J. M., & Risko, E. (2006). Correlates of
the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale method effects. Structural
Equation Modeling, 13(1), 99–117. doi 10.1207/
s15328007sem1301_5
Rogers, M. E., Creed, P. A., & Ian Glendon, A. (2008). The role
of personality in adolescent career planning and exploration:
A social cognitive perspective. Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior, 73, 132–142. doi 10.1016/j.jvb.2008.02.002
Rost, J., Carstensen, C.H., & von Davier, M.(1999). Sind die Big
Five Rasch-skalierbar? Eine Reanalyse der NEO-FFI Normie-
rungsdaten [Are the Big Five Rasch scaleable? A reanalysis of
the NEO-FFI norm data]. Diagnostica, 45, 119–127. doi
10.1026//0012-1924.45.3.119
Roth, M. (2002). Überprüfung der Anwendbarkeit des NEO-
Fünf-Faktoren Inventars (NEO-FFI) bei Jugendlichen im Alter
zwischen 14 und 16 Jahren [Evaluation of the applicability of
the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI – German version)
to adolescents aged 14 to 16]. Diagnostica, 48(2), 59–67.
Rubio, D. M., & Gillespie, D. F. (1995). Problems with error in
structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 2, 367–378.
Saka, N., & Gati, I. (2007). Emotional and personality-related
aspects of persistent career decision-making difficulties. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 71, 340–358. doi 10.1016/j.jvb.
2007.08.003
Sampson, J. P., Peter son, G. W., Reardon, R. C., & Lenz, J. G.
(2000). Using readiness assessment to improve career services:
A cognitive information processing approach. Career Devel-
opment Quarterly, 49, 146–174.
Seibert, S. (2001). The five-factor model of personality and career
success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 1–12.
Seifert, K.H., & Eder, F. (1991). Berufswahl und berufliche Be-
währung und Anpassung während der beruflichen Ausbildung
[Vocational choice and career adjustment during the period of
vocational training]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psycholo-
gie, 5, 187–200.
Skorikov, V.B., & Vondracek, F.W. (2007). Positive career ori-
entation as an inhibitor of adolescent problem behavior. Jour-
nal of Adolescence, 30(1), 131–146.
Slocum-Gori, S. L., Zumbo, B. D., Michalos, A. C., & Diener, E.
(2009). A note on the dimensionality of quality of life scales:
An illustration with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS).
Social Indicators Research, 92, 489–496. doi 10.1007/s11205-
008-9303-y
Super, D.E. (1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career de-
velopment. In D. Brown & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice
and development (Vol. 2, pp. 197–262). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Swanson, J. L., & Tokar, D. M. (1991). Development and initial
validation of the Career Barriers Inventory. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 39, 344–361.
Swiss Federal Statistical Office. (2010). Schülerinnen, Schüler
und Studierende 2009/10 [Students 2009/2010]. Neuchâtel,
Switzerland: Author.
Tokar, D.M., Fischer, A.R., & Mezydlo Subich, L. (1998). Per-
sonality and vocational behavior: A selective review of the
literature, 1993–1997. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53,
115–153.
Ullman, J. B. (2006). Structural equation modeling: Reviewing
the basics and moving forward. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 87, 35–50. doi 10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_03
van Prooijen, J.-W., & van der Kloot, W. A. (2001). Confirmatory
analysis of exploratively obtained factor structures. Education-
al and Psychological Measurement, 61, 777–792.
Whiston, S. C., Sexton, T. L., & Lasoff, D. L. (1998). Career-in-
tervention outcome: A replication and extension of Oliver and
Spokane (1988). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45,
150–165.
Zikic, J., & Hall, D.T. (2009). Toward a more complex view of
careerexploration. Career Development Quarterly, 58, 181–191.
Andreas Hirschi
University of Lausanne
Institute of Psychology
Quartier UNIL-Dorigny
Bâtiment Geopolis
1015 Lausanne
Switzerland
andreas.hirschi@unil.ch
42 A. Hirschi & A. Herrmann: The My Vocational Situation Scale
Swiss J. Psychol. 72 (1) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
