Content uploaded by Martin Storme
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Martin Storme on Jan 05, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Article
Career Decision Ambiguity
Tolerance and Career Decision-
Making Difficulties in a French
Sample: The Mediating Role of
Career Decision Self-Efficacy
Martin Storme
1
, Pinar Celik
2
, and Nils Myszkowski
3
Abstract
In the current work, we investigated the relationship between career decision ambiguity tolerance
(CDAT) and career decision-making difficulties among French-speaking university students. In a
preliminary validation study (N¼246), we examined the psychometric properties of the CDAT
Scale. Our results showed that the French CDAT Scale had satisfactory levels of scale score
reliability, that its factor structure was consistent with the original three-factor structure, and that it
had incremental predictive power over general ambiguity tolerance when predicting career decision
self-efficacy and career adaptability. In a second study (N¼412), building on social cognitive career
theory, we hypothesized that career decision self-efficacy mediates the relationship between CDAT
and career decision-making difficulties. Results were consistent with our hypotheses. Theoretical
and practical implications of the results are discussed.
Keywords
career decision ambiguity tolerance, career decision-making difficulties, career decision self-efficacy
Nowadays, individuals need to stay up-to-date on the developments in their field of work, keep an
eye open for potential new opportunities, and above all make wise and timely decisions to remain
employable (Betz & Voyten, 1997; Crites, 1978; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). For this, individuals
need to be able to collect and integrate various information about the job market and their own
characteristics in relation to the job market almost on a continuous basis (Xu & Tracey, 2015b). The
information that individuals need to process is often subject to quick changes and is highly
1
Universite
´Paris Descartes, Paris, France
2
Centre Emile Bernheim, Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, Universite
´Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels,
Belgium
3
Pace University, New York City, NY, USA
Corresponding Author:
Martin Storme, Universite
´Paris Descartes, Paris, Paris, France.
Email: martinstorme@ymail.com
Journal of Career Assessment
1-16
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1069072717748958
journals.sagepub.com/home/jca
ambiguous, being partial, fragmented, and contradictory (Xu & Tracey, 2014, 2015b). Researchers
increasingly realize that effective career decision-making involves tolerance for the informational
ambiguity in the ongoing career decision process (Xu & Tracey, 2014, 2015b; Xu, Hou, Tracey, &
Zhang, 2016). This is the context in which the Career Decision Ambiguity Tolerance (CDAT) Scale
has been elaborated (Xu & Tracey, 2015b). Until now, there are not many studies using this scale,
which warrants further study. The current work aimed to validate this scale in French (Study 1) and
to test a model connecting CDAT and career decision-making difficulties (Gati, Krausz, & Osipow,
1996), which incorporates career decision-making self-efficacy (CDSE; Betz & Voyten, 1997) as a
mediator between the two constructs (Study 2). Before introducing our theoretical model in more
detail, we first describe relevant research regarding the constructs of general ambiguity tolerance,
career decision-specific ambiguity tolerance, and the CDAT Scale in more detail.
CDAT
The concept of ambiguity tolerance has been an important research topic for over 60 years
(Furnham, Marks, & others, 2013). The dominant approach to ambiguity tolerance is to concep-
tualize the construct as a personality variable, although other researchers have also conceptualized
it as a skill (Ng, 2013). The most used definition describes ambiguity tolerance as the way
individuals perceive, evaluate, and respond to ambiguous stimuli (Budner, 1962). According to
Budner’s (1962) original conceptualization of ambiguity tolerance, three sources of informational
ambiguity exist to which individuals can have varying levels of tolerance: unfamiliarity, complexity,
and inconsistency of information.
Recently, Xu and Tracey (2015b) worked on defining a domain-specific construct of ambiguity
tolerance specifically for career decision-making—CDAT. This construct describes individuals with
high levels of CDAT as comfortable and confident with career informational ambiguity while
making career decisions. According to Xu and Tracey (2015b), individuals with high CDAT have
a low tendency to avoid career informational ambiguity, and are interested in, and might even desire
career informational ambiguity. Individuals with low levels of CDAT, on the other hand, tend to feel
anxious when confronted with career informational ambiguity and try to avoid ambiguity in the
career decision-making process (Xu & Tracey, 2015b).
The career-specific approach to ambiguity tolerance echoes the reasoning of researchers who
have advocated that ambiguity tolerance should be treated as a context-specific construct and that
contextualized measures should be created (Herman, Stevens, Bird, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 2010).
The idea is that items used in general ambiguity tolerance measures may not be representative across
different contexts. Consequently, the CDAT was defined as the way individuals deal with informa-
tional ambiguity, specifically in the process of making career decisions (Xu & Tracey, 2015b). Xu
and Tracey (2015b) found that CDAT has incremental validity beyond general ambiguity tolerance
when predicting different career outcomes. This is a strong argument in favor of using a domain-
specific scale when it comes to investigating the role of ambiguity tolerance in the process of making
career decisions (Xu & Tracey, 2015b).
Another reason why the CDAT is relevant relates to its factor structure. Most common general
ambiguity tolerance models are unidimensional with one underlying tolerance factor theorized to
stem from different sources of informational ambiguity: novelty, complexity, and inconsistency
(Budner, 1962; McLain, 2009). Following this conceptualization, Xu and Tracey (2015b) initially
based the construction of the CDAT largely on this tripartite model. Interestingly, however, their
study revealed that students perceived ambiguity in career information according to three factors
that refer to their specific reactions to informational ambiguity, instead of a general tolerance to
different sources of ambiguity. These factors were preference,tolerance,andaversion for ambig-
uous career information.
2Journal of Career Assessment XX(X)
Preference refers to positive cognitive appraisals of ambiguous information in career decision-
making, especially in the exploratory phase of the career decision-making process. Tolerance refers
to the confidence in one’s ability to cope with informational ambiguity in the career decision-making
process. Finally, aversion refers to the behavioral tendency to avoid career informational ambiguity.
These dimensions in short could be said to reflect the enjoyment,perceived ability, and willingness
to deal with career information ambiguity, which can be considered related, yet essentially distinct
concepts. Indeed, as Xu and Tracey (2015b) pointed out, people might be tolerant (i.e., able) to
process ambiguous information in career decision-making, but they may not necessarily enjoy it, and
vice versa. Similarly, people may be intrigued by ambiguous information, but at the same time they
may avoid confrontation with it for various reasons—for example, because they believe ambiguity
can be a threat to their future career. Supporting this reasoning, correlations between the three
factors were moderate in magnitude, which means that CDAT should be considered as a multi-
dimensional construct. This differentiation between various aspects of reactions to career informa-
tional ambiguity allows for a more fine-grained understanding of the career decision process than
was previously possible with general ambiguity tolerance measures.
In a more recent study, Xu, Hou, Tracey, and Zhang (2016) found that the original three-factor
structure of CDAT—as observed in an American college sample (Xu & Tracey, 2015b)—was not
adequate in the Chinese population. In the Chinese population, it appeared that only the Preference
and Aversion subscales of the CDAT were meaningful factors. Xu et al. (2016) suggested to drop the
tolerance factor when using the CDAT in Chinese samples and speculated that the differential
structural patterns of tolerance across China and the United States may have resulted from different
cultural values. Following the same reasoning, the structure of CDAT could also be different in
France. France is indeed more uncertainty avoidant compared to China and the United States (G. H.
Hofstede & Hofstede, 2001). A higher level of uncertainty avoidance in the population could result
in more extreme scores on CDAT, with possible floor effects on tolerance and preference and ceiling
effects on aversion. Floor and ceiling effects can jeopardize traditional factor analysis and provide
inappropriate factor solutions (see, Muthen & Kaplan, 1992). Consequently, testing the factor
structure of CDAT and replicating the initial validation study conducted by Xu and Tracey
(2015b) in a French sample is a first aim of our current work.
Theoretical Model
A second aim of our current work is to investigate a theoretical model that links CDAT to career
decision-making difficulties. In doing so, a conceptual validation of CDAT is provided, as well as
a theoretical contribution to the understanding of the career decision process. Echoing the ongoing
developments on the job market, various theoretical approaches, such as social cognitive career
theory(SCCT,Lentetal.,1994;Lent&Brown,2013),recognizeandemphasizetheimportanceof
an active and dynamic attitude when managing one’s own career. Applied to career decision-
making, SCCT would predict that effective career decision-making depends on a complex com-
bination of general abilities and values, concrete career decision-making skills, contextual factors,
and cognitive motivational processes related to career decision-making. The present work aimed
to test a mediation model based on SCCT that frames CDAT as an essential cognitive motivational
and ability construct relevant for understanding career decision-making. The model that we
propose conceives of CDAT as a predictor of both CDSE (Betz & Voyten, 1997) and career
decision-making difficulties, as measured by the Career Decision-Making Difficulties Question-
naire (CDDQ; Gati et al., 1996).
Career decision-making difficulties. Gati, Krausz, and Osipow (1996) offered taxonomy of the subjec-
tive experience of career decision-making difficulties, which is still regularly used in recent research
Storme et al. 3
on careers (e.g., Xu & Tracey, 2015a; Storme & Celik, 2017). Career decision-making difficulty in
this taxonomy is a multidimensional construct that takes into account three overarching dimensions:
lack of readiness (LR), lack of information (LI), and inconsistent information (II). Within this
taxonomy, LR consists of a lack of willingness to make a decision, a general trait-like indecisive-
ness, and dysfunctional beliefs—that is, unrealistic expectations regarding one’s future career. LI
consists of four indicators, relating to information about one’s self, about occupations, and about
how to obtain further information. Finally, II consists of unreliable information, internal conflicts,
and external conflicts.
Previous studies found negative correlations between general ambiguity tolerance and career
decision-making difficulties measured with the CDDQ (Gati et al., 1996). Xu and Tracey (2014,
2015a) found that LR, LI, and II were negatively correlated with the Preference and Tolerance
subscales of the CDAT (coefficients ranged between .32 and .24) and positively correlated with
the aversion dimension of the CDAT (coefficients ranged from .46 to .60). When the subscales of
CDAT were entered simultaneously in one regression model, tolerance appeared systematically
nonpredictive for all subdimensions of the CDDQ (Xu & Tracey, 2015a).
CDSE. The concept of self-efficacy originated from social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977). It refers
to feelings of mastery and confidence that one can achieve one’s goals in life (Bandura, 1977). Self-
efficacy is partly the result of previous learning experiences and partly of individuals’ subjective
appraisal of these experiences (Bandura, 1977; Lent & Brown, 2013; Lent et al., 1994). In the
domain of career decision-making, Betz, Klein, and Taylor (1996) proposed the concept of CDSE
and developed the CDSE–Short Form (CDSE-SF) Scale (Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996). Career
decision self-efficacy is defined as an individual’s confidence in his/her ability to complete the
tasks that are required to make career decisions. Five subdimensions of self-efficacy were identified
as critical for CDSE, based on the work of Crites (1978) describing core activities contributing to
making efficient career decisions: the accurate appraisal of one’s job-related capabilities, under-
standing the world of work, matching one’s personal characteristics to job requirements, planning
one’s career path, and coping with problems related to career decisions.
In SCCT (Lent et al., 1994; Lent & Brown, 2013), career decision self-efficacy can be con-
ceptualized as an important cognitive motivational antecedent of career decision-making. Previ-
ous research has reported negative correlations between CDSE and different measures of career
decision-making difficulties (Choi et al., 2012; Osipow & Gati, 1998; Xu & Tracey, 2015a,
2015b). In sum, individuals who have confidence in their ability to engage in career decision-
related activities are expected to be more motivated to make a career decision, the information
about the why’s and wherefore’s of their options, and to be less likely to durably consider that
available career or self-information is insufficient or inconsistent.
According to SCCT, previous social learning experiences are at the basis of CDSE (Lent &
Brown, 2013; Xu & Tracey, 2015a). Xu and Tracey (2015a) argued that individuals with low
CDAT tend to experience more negative experiences while making career decisions because of
their difficulty to solve problems that require managing complex information. Such negative
experiences in turn feed negative beliefs and lower one’s confidence in one’s ability to make
career decisions (Xu & Tracey, 2015a). Based on this, we argue that ambiguity tolerance
should be a predictor of CDSE. Indeed, Xu and Tracey (2015b) found in their initial validation
of the CDAT that the construct is related to CDSE, as measured by the CDSE-SF (Betz et al.,
1996). Bivariate correlations indicated that career decision self-efficacy was positively associ-
ated with the tolerance (r¼.41) and preference (r¼.25) subscales of the CDAT and
negatively associated with aversion (r¼.39). When the subscales of CDAT were entered
simultaneously in one regression model, preference appeared nonpredictive for career decision
self-efficacy.
4Journal of Career Assessment XX(X)
Mediation model. As mentioned above, Xu and Tracey (2015b) found that CDAT predicts both
CDSE—measured with the CDSE-SF (Betz et al., 1996)—and career decision-making difficul-
ties—measured with the CDDQ (Gati et al., 1996). However, Xu and Tracey (2015b) did not
investigate the joint effects of CDAT and career decision self-efficacy in predicting career
decision-making difficulties nor the potential mediating role of career decision self-efficacy. The
only previous study that investigated directly the interrelations between ambiguity tolerance, CDSE,
and career decision-making difficulties used a nonspecific and unidimensional measure of ambi-
guity tolerance (Xu & Tracey, 2015a). This study found that CDSE mediated the relationship
between general ambiguity tolerance and career decision-making difficulties. The model that we
propose states that CDAT plays an important role in the social learning experiences that in turn form
career decision self-efficacy beliefs, which then influences the difficulties that individuals experi-
ence when in the process of making career decisions.
Study Overview
In Study 1, we investigate the internal consistency, factor structure, convergent validity, and incre-
mental validity of the CDAT among French-speaking undergraduate students. Regarding the factor
structure, we test using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) whether the original three-factor model
(Xu & Tracey, 2015b) is adequate in the French population. We investigate the criterion and
incremental validity of the French CDAT by replicating observed correlations obtained with the
original English version. In this first study, we also test whether CDAT has incremental validity over
general ambiguity tolerance when predicting career decision self-efficacy and career adapt-abilities.
In Study 2, we test a mediation model incorporating the idea that being tolerant for career
information ambiguity predicts a sense of mastery and self-efficacy in the career decision process
as assessed with the CDSE-SF (Betz et al., 1996), the latter indicating a key cognitive motiva-
tional resource in career decision-making. This in turn should predict individuals’ experiences of
difficulties in the career decision-making process, as measured with the CDDQ (Gati et al.,
1996). We hypothesize that the CDAT dimensions preference and tolerance are positively related
to career decision self-efficacy and negatively related to all three dimensions of career decision-
making difficulties. In addition, we hypothesize that the CDAT dimension aversion is negatively
related to career decision self-efficacy and positively to all three dimensions of career decision-
making difficulties.
Previous studies found that CDSE seems more strongly associated with difficulties related to
information processing (i.e., LI and II), than with LR (Osipow & Gati, 1998; Xu & Tracey, 2015a,
2015b). Based on these findings, we hypothesize that CDSE negatively predicts difficulties pertain-
ing to LI and II and does not predict difficulties pertaining to LR. Consequently, career decision self-
efficacy mediates the relationship between CDAT and career decision-making difficulties, specif-
ically on the subdimensions LI and II.
Study 1: Validation of the CDAT in French
The aim of the first study was to investigate the internal consistency, the factor structure, the
criterion validity, and the incremental validity of the French CDAT Scale. Regarding the factor
structure, the original three-factor model—preference, tolerance, and aversion—was tested.
In the original validation, Xu and Tracey (2015b) also investigated correlates of CDAT. Notably,
they found correlations with general ambiguity tolerance, CDSE, and career adapt-abilities. More-
over, they found that CDAT predicts CDSE (Betz et al., 1996) and career adapt-abilities (Savickas &
Porfeli, 2012) beyond general ambiguity tolerance (McLain, 2009). The aim of the first study was to
replicate those findings with a French version of the CDAT Scale.
Storme et al. 5
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 246 French undergraduate students in their first year of business admin-
istration studies (M
age
¼18.36, SD
age
¼0.85, range 18–23 years). In the sample, 51.63%of the
participants were male (n¼127) and 48.37%were female (n¼119). Because in France it is illegal
to collect information about participants’ ethnicity, we have no information about participants’
ethnic backgrounds. Participants were invited to participate voluntarily to the survey as part of a
course on human resources management. Over 95%of students enrolled in the course participated in
the survey.
Measurement
CDAT. The CDAT Scale is an 18-item self-report questionnaire (Xu & Tracey, 2015b). It assesses
individuals’ perceptions of complex, original, inconsistent, and unpredictable information during the
process of making a career decision. The scale consists of three subscales: preference (6 items),
tolerance (6 items), and aversion (6 items). Participants respond to the questionnaire using a 5-point
Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree)to5(strongly agree). Two French native speakers
translated the 18 original items into French and an independent English native speaker then trans-
lated them back into English for validation purposes. Minor differences in translation were discussed
and all translators agreed on a final version of the French scale. In previous studies, the scale was
found to have satisfactory structural and construct validity, being correlated with CDSE (Xu &
Tracey, 2015b), career adapt-abilities (Xu & Tracey, 2015b), career exploration (Xu et al., 2016),
and also with emotional and personality-related career difficulties (Xu et al., 2016). In the current
sample, the scale showed satisfactory internal consistency with Cronbach’s abeing .80, .77, and .78
for preference, tolerance, and aversion, respectively. The French version of the CDAT is available
from the corresponding author upon request.
Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance Scale II (MSTAT-II). To assess the level of general ambi-
guity tolerance of participants, we used the French version of the MSTAT-II (McLain, 2009),
which has been shown to have satisfactory psychometric properties and was used in the initial
validation of the CDAT Scale. In previous empirical studies, the MSTAT-II was found to correlate
with other validated measures of general ambiguity tolerance (McLain, 2009) but also with CDAT
(Xu & Tracey, 2015b). Participants respond using a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly
disagree)to5(strongly agree). The observed internal consistency in our sample was satisfactory
(Cronbach’s a¼.80).
CDSE-SF. We used the French version of the 25-item CDSE-SF (Betz et al., 1996; Gaudron, 2013) to
measure students’ self-efficacy regarding making career decisions in five domains: accurate self-
appraisal (5 items), gathering occupational information (5 items), goal selection (5 items), making
plans for the future (5 items), and problem-solving (5 items). Responses were given on a 5-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (no confidence at all)to5(complete confidence). Previous empiri-
cal research has shown that this scale has satisfactory psychometric properties with an overall
Cronbach’s aof .94. The scale also had satisfactory psychometric properties in our sample (Cron-
bach’s awas .90). Previous research has shown that the CDSE-SF is negatively associated with
career decision-making difficulties (Osipow & Gati, 1998; Xu & Tracey, 2015b) and positively
associated with career adapt-abilities (Xu & Tracey, 2015b). Xu and Tracey (2015b) found that the
CDSE-SF was positively correlated with the preference and tolerance dimensions of CDAT and
negatively correlated with the aversion dimension of CDAT (Xu & Tracey, 2015b).
6Journal of Career Assessment XX(X)
Career Adapt-Abilities Scale (CAAS). We assessed career adaptability with the CAAS (Savickas &
Porfeli, 2012; Johnston et al., 2013). The scale measures four dimensions of career adaptability:
concern (6 items), control (6 items), curiosity (6 items), and confidence (6 items). Five-point Likert-
type scales ranging from 1 (not strong)to5(strongest) were used. The original CAAS has been
shown to have satisfactory psychometric properties (Cronbach’s abetween .74 and .85 across
subscales) and construct validity (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). In our sample, the subscales also
exhibited satisfactory scale score reliability (Cronbach’s afor concern, control, curiosity, and
confidence were .82, .80, .79, and .82, respectively).
Procedure
Students were invited to participate in this study as part of a course. Participants filled in all
questionnaires online and anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed. The online survey was
programmed in a way that it was required from participants that they answered all items before they
could submit their responses. As a consequence, we had no missing data.
Analysis
CFA were conducted using the lavaan package in R (Rosseel, 2012). To model CDAT, we used the
items of the scales as indicators. Regarding absolute model fit, we followed the recommendations
of Schumacker and Lomax (2004) and used four statistical indices: the w
2
/df ratio (should be less
than 3), the comparative fit index (CFI should be more than .90), the standardized root mean
square residual (SRMR should be less than .08), and the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA should be less than .08). Model comparisons were based on the minimum Akaike
information criterion (AIC) procedure (Burnham & Anderson, 2002). According to this procedure,
the preferred model should be the one with the lowest AIC. We report standardized model
coefficients.
Results
Univariate and Bivariate Statistics
Univariate and bivariate statistics are reported in Table 1. General ambiguity tolerance appeared
positively correlated with preference (r¼.17, p< .01) and tolerance (r¼.35, p< .01) and
negatively correlated with aversion (r¼.44, p< .01). CDSE also appeared positively corre-
lated with preference (r¼.28, p< .01) and tolerance (r¼.34, p< .01) and negatively
correlated with aversion (r¼.30, p< .01). Finally, the four dimensions of career adaptability
were positively correlated with preference and tolerance and negatively correlated with aversion
(see Table 1). These results are in line with our expectations regarding the criterion validity of
the CDAT.
Factor Structure
CFA were conducted to investigate the factor structure of the CDAT. The theoretical model that
was tested for the CDAT was a model with three correlated factors (preference, tolerance, and
aversion). The fit of the theoretical model was also compared with the fit of a unidimensional
model and with the fit of a model with three independent factors (preference, tolerance, and
aversion).
According to the minimal AIC procedure, the three-correlated factor model (w
2
/df ¼199.86/
132 ¼1.51, CFI ¼.95, AIC ¼9,372.80, RMSEA ¼.04, SRMR ¼.05) was found to fit the data
Storme et al. 7
better than the unidimensional model (w
2
/df ¼622.82/135 ¼4.61, CFI ¼.61, AIC ¼9789.76,
RMSEA ¼.12, SRMR ¼.11) and the three-independent factor model (w
2
/df ¼298.94/135 ¼2.21,
CFI ¼.87, AIC ¼9,465.88, RMSEA ¼.07, SRMR ¼.14). The observed fit indices suggest that
the three-correlated factor model has an acceptable fit. This result is in line with our expectations
regarding the factor structure of the CDAT. Estimates of the three-correlated factor model are
reported in Table 2.
Incremental Validity
In Table 3, we report the results of stepwise regressions conducted to investigate the incremental
validity of the CDAT on CDSE and career adapt-abilities. We found that the CDAT has increased
predictive value for CDSE, F(3,241) ¼11.42, p< .01; career adaptability-concern F(3,241) ¼10.08, p<
.01; career adaptability-control F(3,241) ¼5.70, p< .01; career adaptability-curiosity: F(3,241) ¼5.61,
p< .01; and career adaptability-confidence F(3,241) ¼8.31, p< .01; beyond general ambiguity
tolerance.
Discussion
The aim of the first study was to investigate the internal consistency, the factor structure, the
criterion validity, and the incremental validity of CDAT in a sample of French students. We found
satisfactory levels of scale score reliability for the three subscales of the French CDAT Scale. The
original three-factor structure was replicated with the French CDAT Scale. Finally, this first study
also replicated the incremental validity of CDAT beyond general ambiguity tolerance when pre-
dicting career decision self-efficacy and career adapt-abilities. Altogether, these preliminary results
are promising.
Study 2: Mediation Study
CDAT is especially relevant as a predictor of career decision-making difficulties (Xu &
Tracey, 2014, 2015a, 2015b). This can be understood from the perspective of SCCT (Lent
& Brown, 2013; Lent et al., 1994). Seen from the lens of SCCT, individuals who enjoy, are
able, and willing to deal with career information ambiguity should be more confident regard-
ing their ability to engage in career decision-related activities. This is because engaging in
Table 1. Study 1: Descriptive Statistics.
Mean SD 1 2 3 45678
1. CDAT—Preference 4.30 0.44 —
2. CDAT—Tolerance 3.74 0.51 0.40 —
3. CDAT—Aversion 2.64 0.58 0.16 0.48 —
4. AT 3.07 0.53 0.17 0.35 0.44 —
5. CDSE-SF 3.63 0.42 0.28 0.34 0.30 0.23 —
6. CAAS—Concern 3.68 0.62 0.21 0.33 0.33 0.25 0.61 —
7. CAAS—Control 3.92 0.63 0.20 0.28 0.23 0.22 0.56 0.51 —
8. CAAS—Curiosity 3.74 0.59 0.24 0.28 0.22 0.26 0.55 0.52 0.52
9. CAAS—Confidence 3.96 0.56 0.27 0.29 0.28 0.24 0.62 0.48 0.66 0.52
Note. N ¼246. |r| > .13 are significant at p¼.05. |r| > .17 are significant at p¼.01. CDAT ¼Career Decision Ambiguity
Tolerance; MSTAT-II ¼Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance Scale II; CDSE-SF ¼Career Decision Self-Efficacy–
Short Form; CAAS ¼Career Adapt-Abilities Scale; AT ¼Ambiguity Tolerance measured by the Multiple Stimulus Types
Ambiguity Tolerance Scale II.
8Journal of Career Assessment XX(X)
such activities requires the motivation and ability to deal with career information ambiguity.
Consequently, significant correlations should be observed between CDAT and CDSE, the
latter in turn mediating the relationship between CDAT and career decision-making
difficulties.
Supporting the predictions derived from SCCT, previous research has shown that CDAT, career
decision self-efficacy, and career decision-making difficulties are correlated (Xu & Tracey, 2015b).
To extend these findings, we test a model in which CDSE mediates the relationship between CDAT
and career decision-making difficulties.
Method
Participants
French third-year business administration students (N¼412) participated in the second study
(M
age
¼20.77, SD
age
¼1.18, range: 19–35 years). In the sample, 42.48%of the participants were
male (n¼175) and 57.52%were female (n¼237). As in Study 1, participants were invited to
participate voluntarily to the survey as part of a course on human resources management. More than
95%of all students enrolled in the course participated in the survey.
Table 2. Study 1: Factor Loadings of the French CDAT.
Item Preference Tolerance Aversion
I am interested in exploring the many aspects of my personality and
interests
0.73
I am excited that I can learn new things about myself or about the world
when making a career decision
0.76
I am excited to see a creative way to match my interests with a career 0.60
It is interesting to discover new strengths and weaknesses 0.64
I am not interested in knowing new information about myself 0.65
I am open to careers which I have never heard of or thought of before 0.46
I enjoy tackling complex career decision-making tasks 0.56
I am tolerant of the potential difference between my perception and the
reality of a career
0.59
I am able to make a choice when multiple options seem equally appealing 0.50
I am tolerant of the unpredictability of a career 0.64
I am tolerant with the possibility that my interests could change in the future 0.70
I do not mind changing my career in the future if necessary 0.59
I try to avoid complicated career decision-making tasks 0.63
I find it difficult to make career decision as things cannot be predicted clearly 0.62
I am afraid of sorting out the complex aspects of a career 0,68
The career decision-making process, which involves so many
considerations, is just daunting
0.62
I try to avoid a career in which the prospects cannot be foreseen clearly 0.57
People’s different or sometimes contradictory perspectives about a career
makes me uncomfortable
0.54
Mean 4.30 3.74 2.64
Standard deviation 0.44 0.51 0.58
Cronbach’s a0.80 0.77 0.78
Factor correlation preference — 0.48 0.23
Factor correlation tolerance — 0.58
Note. N ¼246. All estimates are significant at p¼.01. CDAT ¼Career Decision Ambiguity Tolerance.
Storme et al. 9
Measurement
CDAT. We used the same scale as in Study 1. Again in this study, the scale showed satisfactory scale
score reliability. Cronbach’s awere .78, .70, and .73 for preference, tolerance, and aversion,
respectively.
CDSE-SF. We used the same scale as in Study 1. The scale also had satisfactory psychometric
properties in the current sample (Cronbach’s awas .91).
CDDQ. The CDDQ (Gati et al., 1996; Massoudi, Masdonati, Clot-Siegrist, Franz, & Rossier, 2008)
assesses 10 dimensions of career indecision (Gati et al., 1996): lack of motivation (LM, 3 items),
general indecisiveness (GI, 3 items), dysfunctional beliefs (DBs, 4 items), LI regarding the stages of
the career decision-making process (LP, 3 items), LI regarding the self (LS, 4 items), LI regarding
occupations (LO, 3 items), lack of additional information (LA, 2 items), unreliable information
(IU, 3 items), internal conflicts (INs, 5 items), and external conflicts (IEs, 2 items).
Table 3. Study 1: Stepwise Regression Results.
Step Variable BSE bR
2
Delta F
CDSE-SF
Step 1 AT 0.18 0.05 0.23** .05 F(1,244) ¼13.21, p<.01
Step 2 AT 0.05 0.05 0.07 .17 F(3,241) ¼11.42, p<.01
Preference 0.17 0.06 0.17**
Tolerance 0.14 0.06 0.16*
Aversion 0.12 0.05 0.17*
CAAS—Concern
Step 1 AT 0.29 0.07 0.25** .06 F(1,244) ¼15.79, p<.01
Step 2 AT 0.10 0.07 0.08 .17 F(3,241) ¼10.08, p<.01
Preference 0.14 0.09 0.10
Tolerance 0.21 0.09 0.17*
Aversion 0.22 0.08 0.20**
CAAS—Control
Step 1 AT 0.26 0.07 0.22** .05 F(1,244) ¼11.86, p<.01
Step 2 AT 0.12 0.08 0.10 .11 F(3,241) ¼5.70, p<.01
Preference 0.14 0.10 0.10
Tolerance 0.21 0.09 0.16*
Aversion 0.19 0.08 0.10
CAAS—Curiosity
Step 1 AT 0.30 0.07 0.26** .07 F(1,244) ¼18.04, p<.01
Step 2 AT 0.18 0.08 0.16* .13 F(3,241) ¼5.61, p<.01
Preference 0.19 0.09 0.14*
Tolerance 0.16 0.09 0.14
Aversion 0.06 0.07 0.06
CAAS—Confidence
Step 1 AT 0.25 0.07 0.24** .06 F(1,244) ¼14.50, p<.01
Step 2 AT 0.11 0.07 0.10 .15 F(3,241) ¼8.31, p<.01
Preference 0.23 0.08 0.18**
Tolerance 0.11 0.08 0.10
Aversion 0.15 0.07 0.15*
Note. N ¼246. MSTAT-II ¼Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance Scale II; CDSE-SF ¼Career Decision Self-Efficacy–
Short Form; CAAS ¼Career Adapt-Abilities Scale; AT ¼Ambiguity Tolerance measured by the Multiple Stimulus Types
Ambiguity Tolerance Scale II.
*p< .05. **p< .01.
10 Journal of Career Assessment XX(X)
The model distinguishes three second-order factors: LR—which is extracted from LM, GI, and DBs;
LI—which is extracted from LP, LS, LO, and LA; and II—which is extracted from IU, INs, and IEs.
Participants respond using 9-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (does not describe me)to9
(describes me well). The CDDQ has been shown to have satisfactory psychometric properties
(Cronbach’s aranging between .70 and .90) and construct validity (Willner, Gati, & Guan,
2015). The subscales showed satisfactory scale score reliability in our sample (Cronbach’s afor
LR, LI, and II were .73, .94, and .90, respectively).
Procedure
We invited students to participate in this study as part of a course. Participants filled in all ques-
tionnaires online and anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed. As in Study 1, the online
survey was programmed in a way that it was required from participants that they answered all items
before they could submit their responses. As a consequence, we had no missing data.
We asked students to think about the difficulties they experienced during the process of choosing
their master specialization when filling in the CDDQ. Indeed, in the European Union, the first 3
years of business administration university are general and students have to choose their master
specialization (marketing, finance, etc.) during the third year of their education. Such a decision is
not necessarily easy to make because there are many things to take into account such as the academic
difficulty of the chosen track, personal preferences for specific topics, the job market, and so on.
Analysis
Measurement and structural models were tested within the framework of structural equation modeling
(SEM, Schreiber, Nora, Stage, Barlow, & King, 2006) and we used the lavaan package in R (Rosseel,
2012) to perform the analyses. SEM is a more precise test compared to using simple sum scores
because it corrects for unreliability of the measurements (Byrne, 2013). Thresholds for fit indices were
the same as in Study 1. To modelCDAT, we used the items of the scalesas indicators. For CDSE Scale
and CDDQ, we used the sum scores of the subscales as indicator variables of latent variables.
Results
Univariate and Bivariate Statistics
Univariate and bivariate statistics are reported in Table 4. Consistent with Study 1, career decision
self-efficacy appeared positively correlated with preference (r¼.27, p< .01) and tolerance (r¼.29,
Table 4. Study 2: Descriptive Statistics.
Mean SD 123456
1. CDAT—Preference 3.94 0.59 —
2. CDAT—Tolerance 3.48 0.48 0.29 —
3. CDAT—Aversion 3.11 0.54 0.11 0.11 —
4. CDSE-SF 3.57 0.46 0.27 0.29 0.16 —
5. CDDQ—Lack of readiness 4.76 1.24 0.19 0.17 0.30 0.24 —
6. CDDQ—Lack of information 4.49 1.63 0.18 0.10 0.35 0.32 0.65 —
7. CDDQ—Inconsistent information 4.08 1.58 0.24 0.10 0.29 0.28 0.62 0.78
Note. N ¼412. |r| > .10 are significant at p¼.05. |r| > .13 are significant at p¼.01. CDAT ¼Career Decision Ambiguity
Tolerance; CDSE-SF ¼Career Decision Self-Efficacy—Short Form; CDDQ ¼Career Decision-Making Difficulties
Questionnaire.
Storme et al. 11
p< .01) and negatively correlated with aversion (r¼.16, p< .01). Consistent with our expecta-
tions, LR, LI, and II were negatively correlated with preference and tolerance and positively
correlated with aversion (see Table 4).
Mediation Analyses
We first tested the measurement model before assessing the structural relationships. The measure-
ment model showed satisfactory fit (w
2
/df ¼1,014.63/474 ¼2.14, CFI ¼.91, SRMR ¼.06,
RMSEA ¼.05). The data supported our theoretical expectations regarding the factor structure of
CDAT, CDSE, and career decision-making difficulties.
We then assessed the structural relationships to test our mediation hypotheses. A simplified version of
the model—including only the paths between latent variables—can be found in Figure 1. Preference was
found to have a marginally significant total effect on LR (B¼0.32, p¼.05). Preference also had a
significant total effect on LI (B¼0.40, p< .01) and II (B¼0.52, p< .01). Career decision self-efficacy
mediated the effect of preference on LI, B¼0.16, p< .01, 95%CI ¼[0.27, 0.04], and II, B¼0.13,
p< .01, 95%CI ¼[0.23, 0.03]. Aversion had a significant total effect on LR (B¼0.95, p< .01), LI (B
¼1.23, p<.01),andII(B¼1.08, p< .01). CDSE mediated the effect of aversion on LI, B¼0.14, p< .05,
95%CI ¼[0.01, 0.27], and II, B¼0.12, p<.05,95%CI ¼[0.01, 0.23]. Tolerance was found to have no
total effect on career decision-making difficulties when controlling for preference and aversion.
Figure 1. Standardized estimates of the model. All estimates are significant, except when indicated with n.s.
12 Journal of Career Assessment XX(X)
Discussion
Our findings are in line with the mediation model inspired from SCCT. We found that especially
preference and aversion have significant total effects on LR, LI, and II. Career decision self-efficacy
was found to mediate the effects of aversion on LI and II. We also found that career decision self-
efficacy mediated the effects of preference on LI and II. Our findings replicate and extend previous
research (Xu & Tracey, 2015a) by showing that the relationship between CDAT and career decision-
making difficulties is mediated by CDSE.
General Discussion
The current research had the aim to validate the CDAT (Xu & Tracey, 2015b) in French and to test a
model of the relationship between CDAT and career decision-making difficulties (Gati et al., 1996)
in a French sample of young students. The model described CDAT as a predictor of career decision-
making difficulties, through the mediating role of CDSE (Betz & Voyten, 1997). Overall, the two
studies conducted provided favorable results. Below, we first review the results of the validation
study and then turn to the second study which tested the theoretical model.
Overall, Study 1 showed that the French CDAT has satisfactory psychometric properties. First,
regarding the internal consistency, we found satisfactory levels of scale score reliability for all three
subscales of the French CDAT Scale. The observed Cronbach’s as were comparable to those
obtained in the original validation by Xu and Tracey (2015b).
Second, regarding the factor structure, analyses showed that it is consistent with the original
three-factor structure found in two previous studies (Xu & Tracey, 2015b; Xu, Hou, Tracey, &
Zhang, 2016). As in the original version, the three factors of the French CDAT are preference,
tolerance, and aversion. Correlations between the three factors were found to be moderate in
magnitude, meaning that CDAT should be considered as a multidimensional construct.
Third, regarding the criterion validity, the French CDAT was, as predicted, associated with CDSE
(Betz & Voyten, 1997) and career adaptability (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012)—as measured respec-
tively with the CDSE-SF (Betz & Voyten, 1997) and the CAAS (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012).
Moreover, the predictive value of the CDAT for these constructs went beyond that of general
ambiguity tolerance—measured with the MSTAT-II (McLain, 1993)—demonstrating the incremen-
tal validity of CDAT, as in the original validation study.
Finally, an important contribution to the existing literature is that, in Study 2, we found relation-
ships between CDAT and career decision-making difficulties that were consistent with the results
obtained by Xu and Tracey (2015b). We found that the preference and aversion dimensions of
CDAT had significant total effects on LR, LI, and II . Regarding the tolerance dimension—despite
significant bivariate correlations with all outcome variables in the model—we found that in the
regression model including all three dimensions of CDAT, the contribution of tolerance became
nonsignificant. This finding is also consistent with previous studies that only reported significant
bivariate correlations for the tolerance dimension, but no significant contribution when controlling
for preference and aversion (Xu & Tracey, 2015b).
As an important extension of the previous literature, we also found in our second study that CDSE
mediated (1) the effects of aversion on LI and II and (2) the effects of preference on LI and II. From
the perspective of SCCT, CDAT can be seen as an antecedent of career decision self-efficacy. In
other words, individuals with low levels of CDAT tend to feel less confident when engaging in
career decision–related activities, which can explain partly why they experience difficulties.
The tolerance dimension of CDAT was not found to predict significantly career decision-making
difficulties when controlling for the preference and aversion dimensions in one regression model.
These findings are in line with those of Xu and Tracey (2015b) who also did not find any relationship
Storme et al. 13
between tolerance and career decision-making difficulties when controlling for preference and aver-
sion. This finding however deserves further elaboration. One possibility is that what differentiates the
tolerance dimension from the other two dimensions in CDAT is the fact that the items seem to tap
more into a self-perceived skill (i.e., “I am tolerant of the unpredictability of a career”), compared to
the other two dimensions that seem to tap more into motivational and behavioral aspects of CDAT.
Therefore, both our findings and those of Xu and Tracey (2015b) could indicate that in particular the
motivational and behavioral aspects of CDAT are the main contributors to experienced difficulties in
the career decision-making process, and not so much the skill aspect.
The current study provides a more fine-grained picture of the relationship between career-specific
ambiguity tolerance, on one hand, and CDSE and career decision-making difficulties, on the other
hand. It shows that specifically avoidant behavior regarding complex career information (aversion)
and positive cognitive motivational appraisals of complex and novel career information (preference)
predict CDSE and career decision-making difficulties. This means that mere tolerance, that is one’s
perceived ability in handling career informational ambiguity, seems not the most central variable in
predicting career decision-making difficulties, which not only has theoretical implications but also
has important practical implications.
Practical Implications and Future Directions
The current research has two related implications for practice. First, our findings can help practi-
tioners like career counselors, teachers, and career managers detect among young individuals the
ones who are at risk of experiencing career decision-making difficulties, using the CDAT. Second,
our findings can help practitioners to define more specifically the content of interventions aiming at
addressing the issue of career decision-making difficulties. For both practical aims, our findings
suggest that the most relevant dimensions of CDAT are preference and aversion. This means that in
selection and monitoring procedures practitioners should be aware that especially self-reported
low enjoyment and liking of career information ambiguity and behavioral avoidance of ambiguous
career situations are predictive of experiencing career decision-making difficulties and less low
levels of self-perceived tolerance, that is, low self-reported ability in handling career informa-
tional ambiguity. Regarding the development of interventions, our findings could be taken as to
suggest that interventions might be more effective if they focus (1) more on stimulating the
behavioral approach of ambiguous career situations and information and (2) on stimulating and
increasing awareness of enjoyment of ambiguity. This could be achieved with take-home exer-
cises and tasks that require from clients exposure to ambiguous career situations and self-
reflection exercises, as well as goup discussion activities focused on the positive aspects of
such situations. Intervention developers may remind themselves that strengthening directly or
reminding clients of one’s skills and ability to tolerate career informational ambiguity could be
less efficient and therefore may receive less emphasis in interventions. Because our study was
conducted among French students, French institutes in charge of career counseling among
university students—such as Services Universitaires d’Information et d’Orientation and
Bureaux d’Aide a` l’Insertion Professionnelle—could especially benefit from our
recommendations by including the French CDAT Scale in their annual surveys.
Our study has several limitations. First, both studies are transversal and do not allow causal
interpretations. Replicating Study 2 with a longitudinal design could allow testing the causality of
the relationship between CDAT and career decision-making difficulties. Second, both studies are
based on convenience samples of undergraduate business administration university students from
France. Convenience samples are not necessarily detrimental to the validity of studies as noted by
Highhouse and Gillespie (2009), but further research could aim at replicating our studies in
nonuniversity student populations to investigate the generalizability of our findings. Note that
14 Journal of Career Assessment XX(X)
our results may also not generalize well to all French-speaking populations. Although French
grammar and vocabulary are relatively stable across countries, it is possible that some expressions
will require some minor adaptation when using the CDAT Scale in other French-speaking coun-
tries than France. Future research could investigate the validity of the French CDAT in other
French-speaking countries.
In conclusion, our results enhance our understanding of CDAT. Our study provides researchers
and counselors with a psychometrically valid scale to assess CDAT in French-speaking populations.
Moreover, our study provides evidence in favor of SCCT (Lent & Brown, 2013; Lent et al., 1994) by
showing that CDAT predicts career decision-making difficulties through career decision self-
efficacy.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,84,
191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Betz, N. E., Klein, K. L., & Taylor, K. M. (1996). Evaluation of a short form of the Career Decision-Making
Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment,4, 47–57. doi:10.1177/106907279600400103
Betz, N. E., & Voyten, K. K. (1997). Efficacy and outcome expectations influence career exploration and
decidedness. The Career Development Quarterly,46, 179–189. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1997.tb01004.x
Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality,30, 29–50. doi:10.
1111/j.1467-6494.1962.tb02303.x
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-
theoretic approach. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media. doi:10.4135/9781848608368.n7
Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming. New York: Psychology Press.
Choi, B. Y., Park, H., Yang, E., Lee, S. K., Lee, Y., & Lee, S. M. (2012). Understanding career decision self-
efficacy: A meta-analytic approach. Journal of Career Development,39, 443–460. doi:10.1177/
0894845311398042
Crites, J. O. (1978). Career maturity inventory. Monterey, CA: McGraw Hill.
Furnham, A., & Marks, J., & others. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent literature.
Psychology,4, 717. doi:10.4236/psych.2013.49102
Gati, I., Krausz, M., & Osipow, S. H. (1996). A taxonomy of difficulties in career decision making. Journal of
Counseling Psychology,43, 510–526. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.43.4.510
Gaudron, J.-P. (2013). L’e´chelle des sentiments d’auto-efficacite´ aux de´ cisions de carrie`re-forme courte: Une
adaptation franc¸aise pour lyce´ens. L’orientation Scolaire et Professionnelle,42. doi:10.4000/osp.4108
Herman, J. L., Stevens, M. J., Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (2010). The tolerance for ambiguity scale:
Towards a more refined measure for international management research. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations,34, 58–65. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.09.004
Highhouse, S., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2009). Do samples really matter that much? In Statistical and meth-
odological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences.
A. Charles, E. Lance, B. Robert, & J. Vandenberg (Eds.), (pp. 247–265). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hofstede, G. H., & Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and
organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Storme et al. 15
Johnston, C. S., Broonen, J.-P., Stauffer, S. D., Hamtiaux, A., Pouyaud, J., Zecca, G., ... Rossier, J. (2013).
Validation of an adapted French form of the Career Adapt-Abilities Scale in four francophone countries.
Journal of Vocational Behavior,83, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.02.002
Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2013). Social cognitive model of career self-management: Toward a unifying
view of adaptive career behavior across the life span. Journal of Counseling Psychology,60, 557. doi:10.
1037/a0033446
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and
academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior,45, 79–122. doi:10.1006/jvbe.
1994.1027
Massoudi, K., Masdonati, J., Clot-Siegrist, E., Franz, S., & Rossier, J. (2008). Assessing the effects of career
counseling: The influence of working alliance and individual characteristics. Pratiques Psychologiques,14,
117–136. doi:10.1016/j.prps.2007.11.010
McLain, D. L. (1993). The MSTAT-I: A new measure of an individual’s tolerance for ambiguity. Educational
and Psychological Measurement,53, 183–189. doi:10.1177/0013164493053001020
McLain, D. L. (2009). Evidence of the properties of an ambiguity tolerance measure: The Multiple Stimulus
Types Ambiguity Tolerance Scale–II (MSTAT-II). Psychological Reports,105, 975–988. doi:10.2466/PR0.
105.3.975-988
Muthen, B., & Kaplan, D. (1992). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal
Likert variables: A note on the size of the model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical
Psychology,45, 19–30. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.1992.tb00975.x
Ng, D. (2013). Seeing through the fog of ambiguity: Entrepreneurial judgments under decision settings of
complexity. Human Systems Management,32, 57–66.
Osipow, S. H., & Gati, I. (1998). Construct and concurrent validity of the Career Decision-Making Difficulties
Questionnaire. Journal of Career Assessment,6, 347–364. doi:10.1177/106907279800600305
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software,48,
1–36.
Savickas, M. L., & Porfeli, E. J. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale: Construction, reliability, and measure-
ment equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior,80, 661–673. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.
2012.01.011
Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation
modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research,99,
323–338. doi:10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. New York,
NY: Psychology Press. doi:10.1111/j.1751-5823.2011.00149.13.x
Storme, M., & Celik, P. (2017). Career exploration and career decision-making difficulties: The moderating
role of creative self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment. doi:10.1177/1069072717714540
Willner, T., Gati, I., & Guan, Y. (2015). Career decision-making profiles and career decision-making difficul-
ties: A cross-cultural comparison among US, Israeli, and Chinese samples. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
88, 143–153. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.03.007
Xu, H., Hou, Z.-J., Tracey, T. J., & Zhang, X. (2016). Variations of Career Decision Ambiguity Tolerance
between china and the United States and between high school and college. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
93, 120–128. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2016.01.007
Xu, H., & Tracey, T. J. (2014). The role of ambiguity tolerance in career decision making. Journal of
Vocational Behavior,85, 18–26. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2014.04.001
Xu, H., & Tracey, T. J. (2015a). Ambiguity tolerance with career indecision: An examination of the mediation
effect of career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment,23, 519–532. doi:10.1177/
1069072714553073
Xu, H., & Tracey, T. J. (2015b). Career Decision Ambiguity Tolerance Scale: Construction and initial valida-
tions. Journal of Vocational Behavior,88, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.01.006
16 Journal of Career Assessment XX(X)
