Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 285; doi:10.3390/educsci9040285 www.mdpi.com/journal/education
Article
A Confirmatory Evaluation of an Educational
Orientation Tool for Pre-University Students
María del Carmen Olmos-Gómez
1,
*, Mónica Luque-Suárez
2
and Jesús Manuel Cuevas-Rincón
1
1
Department of Research Methods and Diagnosis in Education, Faculty of Education and Sport Science,
University of Granada, 52005 Melilla, Spain; jcuevas@ugr.es
2
Department of Sociology, Faculty of Education and Sport Science, University of Granada,
52005 Melilla, Spain; mlsuarez@ugr.es
* Correspondence: mcolmos@ugr.es
Received: 17 October 2019; Accepted: 26 November 2019; Published: 1 December 2019
Abstract: This study incorporates the design and validation of a questionnaire for the evaluation of
Careers Advisory Services and the systematic processes that influence it (family, peer groups,
socioeconomic status, etc.). In addition, it examines its psychometric properties within a
multicultural population of students attending educational centres in the south of Spain. It seeks to
create a valid instrument that is reliable as a measurement tool and useful for evaluating decision
making situations relevant to the future working context. A perspective of working life is given
through consideration of the degree choices made by those involved in the decision-making process.
The metrics used showed high content and construct validity. Structural equation modelling (SEM)
and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were employed. Indicators described by Wald and Lagrange
were used to examine and modify the model in order to obtain a model that best fits relevant theory
and goodness of fit criteria.
Keywords: Systematic processes; family; educational orientation; confirmatory factor;
pre-university
1. Introduction
In recent years significant changes have taken place in contemporary Western society. The
difficulty of accessing employment, delayed emancipation and the proliferation of paid jobs that are
not characterised by specific training (disc-jockey (DJ), youtubers, influencers, etc.), have led young
people to reconsider their career opportunities in a way that differs from two decades ago. A number
of research studies exist that focus on university education. These relegate issues that emerge
throughout the process of basic education to the background. These have largely ignored the
systematic processes (social relationships, the arts, philosophy, etc.) required throughout learning in
order to achieve better human development [1].
Despite challenges to the decision making processes of adolescents, parents respect them,
assuming a subsidiary role of support and listening, that influences upon security and self-efficacy
[2]. The present research focuses specifically on these systematic processes which, in one way or
another, influence the subsequent development of our working youth for
attaining the skills and tools
to get a future job.
Education is a fundamental piece of reproduction, the structure of power relationships and of
the symbolic relationships between classes. This puts emphasis on the importance of the inherited
cultural capital within the family unit that goes hand in hand with education, as a key to success at
school [3].
Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 285 2 of 14
To this end, the family fulfils the task of passing on culture, values and traditions, and
establishing the basic norms that will guarantee coexistence in society [4]. From an educational point
of view, the difficulty of deciding, on behalf of students, when choosing an academic degree becomes
a real problem [5–8]. This issue is particularly pertinent for students in the final stage of their
education who lack motivation due to not being adequately informed [9]. This is the focus of the
present study. Despite challenges to the decision making processes of adolescents, parents respect
them, assuming a subsidiary role of support and listening, that influences upon security and self-
efficacy [10].
Thus, during the stage of secondary education that coincides with academic choice, vocational
maturity is still found in a state of crescendo. From this arises the urgent need to work with both
families and educational centres in a way that encourages students to take decisions in order to
overcome feelings of uncertainty [11].
Multiple factors have an influence on decision making. These include the influence of the peer
group, the economic situation and individual characteristics, amongst others [12–14]. This being
said, it has been noted that, amongst these factors, the parental context is one of the most significant
variables [15–18].
At the time of making a decision, children feel that they are supported when they see parents
who are involved and hold positive expectations [19,20]. One of the central variables is the
educational level of parents. If the parents themselves possess university qualifications, it is more
likely that their children will also decide to attend university [10].
Another of the determining factors in the choice of one’s future career is the family’s
socioeconomic level [21]. This is significant given that it has as much of an effect on the resources
available to invest in education, as on the urgency for the child to enter the workplace in order to
contribute with an income [22].
Thus, achieving professional recognition and prestige, or obtaining a well-paid job, are extrinsic
motives [23] in the decision to study for a specific academic career.
The vocational and professional orientation and guidance received from careers services, is
another one of the key points in the present work. Studies conducted by Domínguez et al. [24]
reported that interviewed pre-university students confessed to not having received sufficiently
adequate careers advice. This could be because young people rely on their inner social circle
(relatives, friends and teachers at their school), to provide sources of information regarding the
careers they should train for [25].
On the other hand, it has been indicated by Martínez-Vicente [26], that modifications to study
plans, increases in options and specialisation, and the creation of new degree courses, all of which
are linked to the immaturity, doubts and lack of information of students make it necessary to design
actions which stimulate vocational development and facilitate appropriate, realistic and responsible
decision making [27–31].
Given this, it is fundamental that educational orientation, exactly as it is understood in the
present research, acts to develop individuals who are capable of making the right decision at each
moment of the educational stage. To achieve this, evaluation of careers advice through a
standardised, reliable and valid questionnaire is vital [32].
In this context, the main objective of the present research is to develop an instrument that
measures the systematic processes that influence the degree choices of pre-university students. To
address this objective, the questionnaire will be required to meet established psychometric
requirements for validity and reliability. In order to test these characteristics, the methodology of
structural equation modelling (SEM) will be followed. This methodology is a type of analysis that
uses Latent Class Models. This consists of multivariate regressions for relating response patterns to a
set of factors that cannot be observed directly but exist through the responses of the people evaluated
[33]. More concretely, SEM methodology consists of the following phases [34]:
1. Specification of the measurement model. In this, the latent traits and their dimensions are
established;
Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 285 3 of 14
2. Implementation of a structural equation system;
3. Use of goodness of fit criteria. This has the aim of relating the validation results with the
dimensional structure of the tool being evaluated;
4. Repeat specification of the measurement model. Adding or removing associations between
factors, always within that which is permitted by the theoretical basis of the research.
2. Results
2.1. Participants
In order to carry out the study a sample of 1302 second year Baccalaureate students was used
(54.2% female and 45.7% male). The sample was aged between 17 and 19 years. The students came
from seven centres of compulsory secondary and Baccalaureate education in the autonomous city of
Melilla (87.6% of the sample came from a public school and 12.4% from a public/private mixed
school). Participants represented 98.90% of the overall number of second year Baccalaureate students.
The branches of Baccalaureate studies examined were: Science and Technology (33.10%), Humanities
and Social Sciences (63.30%) and Art (4.60%).
2.2. Instrument
Members of a multi-disciplinary team from the University Careers Advisory office (University
of Granada) dedicated to the personal, professional and academic orientation of pre-university and
university students were involved. They created and validated a new questionnaire to measure the
way in which this service influences university degree choices of Baccalaureate students. The
questionnaire incorporated variables relating to socioeconomic level and family influence. The
designed instrument follows the main theoretical foundations and international recommendations
for the construction of tests. For data collection, the present study counted on the voluntary
participation of students who presented for PEBAU tests (University Baccalaureate Assessment Test)
in the autonomous city of Melilla. Permission was granted beforehand in order to access the schools.
For the development of the questionnaire the Social Survey 2010: Education and Homes in
Andalusia (ESOC2010) [35] and the Questionnaire of Areas of Basic Professional Academic Interests:
CIBAP, were taken into consideration.
With the aim of examining the understanding and clarity of items, the first version of the
questionnaire was administered to a public school and the other to a mixed school (public-private).
Following this pilot test, the initial instrument was modified under consideration of the results
obtained. Items were eliminated that were difficult to understand and comprehend by the students.
In the exploratory phase, the final version of the adapted instrument was developed. To achieve this,
three rounds of analysis were carried out through discussion between members of the coordinating
group. These analyses bore in mind the adjustments and corrections suggested by the expert group.
The agreement percentage between members of the coordinating group in the first round of
discussion ranged between K ≥ 60 and K ≥ 75. In the second round it ranged between K ≥ 71 and K ≥
84; and in the third round it ranged between K ≥ 83 and K ≥ 91.
The items whose agreement percentage between judges from the coordinating group was K ≥ 70
and which were largely rated below three on the Likert scale by the expert group, were modified,
eliminated or re-grouped. Following application of this method, various elements were not
significantly modified, two were completely eliminated and some were re-grouped into two groups.
This means that the final questionnaire was composed of 22 questions divided into seven dimensions
or factors.
The subsequent version of the questionnaire remained composed of 22 items, according to which
students were required to indicate the correct response option. Of these items, six were socio-
demographic in nature. This version was administered to the sample of N = 1302 and was used to
conduct the psychometric analysis of reliability and validity. Exploratory and confirmatory data
analysis was utilised for this.
Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 285 4 of 14
2.3. Procedure
Firstly, contact was established with the careers advisory services and the management teams of
seven centres for Compulsory Secondary and Baccalaureate Education. These participated via a non-
probabilistic, accidental and causal sampling approach. All of the schools were sent an email
informing them about the voluntary and anonymous nature of the study, alongside its aims and
objectives. Subsequently, members of the university’s careers advisory services administered the
questionnaire to students in a paper format and through Google forms (online) (see Appendix A).
The study was approved by the Vice Dean’s Ethical Committee for Social Responsibility of the
Education and Sport Sciences Faculty in Melilla (University of Granada).
2.4. Data Analysis
Statistics for the univariate (kurtosis and asymmetry) and grouped (mean and standard
deviation) items were initially calculated. Following this, the sample (N = 1302) was used to examine
the dimensions of the questionnaire. The first step was to conduct an exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) with the responses given to each questionnaire item for each source of information. A
polychoric correlation was used to provide an entrance matrix for the data. Further, the extraction
method used was principal component analysis and the Varimax rotation method was used with
Kaiser correction [36]. The EFA was conducted with a pilot sample of N = 215. The Kaiser–Meyer–
Olkin (KMO) index was calculated with the aim of analysing validity [37], with values greater than
.5 being considered acceptable. Our measurement of KMO = 0.822, indicates to us that the method is
appropriate. In addition, we performed the Bartlett sphericity test which measures the adequacy of
the correlation matrix for carrying out the factor analysis. A value higher than 0.05 indicates that the
conditions are not appropriate for conducting a factor analysis. In our analysis, the value obtained
was significant at the level of 0.000, which corroborates that the conditions are appropriate for
performing a factor analysis. Finally, we can analyse the variance between all of the variables
analysed in the overall variance table. The result of this analysis of pilot sample supports the existence
of seven factors that explain 59.077% of the overall variance. Through conducting the Cattell
sedimentation test shown in Figure 1, it is graphically confirmed that the optimal number of factors
with a value higher than one is seven [32]. Factor 1 relates to the social influence of the student at the
time of making decisions, with this explaining 17.026% of the variance. Factor 2 refers to the parental
influence upon the student at the time of making decisions, with this explaining 8.778% of the
variance. Factor 3 pertains to the Careers Advisory Service’s role at the time of making decisions,
with this explaining 8.358% of the overall variance. Factor 4 refers to the association between the
PEBAU and decision making, with this explaining 7.584% of the overall variance. Factor 5 refers to
the information received by the Student Orientation Department, with this explaining 7.108% of the
overall variance. Factor 6 refers to decision making of the student, with this explaining 5.381% of the
overall variance. Factor 7 refers to decision making under the influence of parents, with this
explaining 4.842% of the overall variance [32]. For the confirmatory analysis, the number of factors
was reduced, adapting it according to the weight of its variances, finally remaining at four factors.
Estimation of reliability of the scale ratings was made through Cronbach alpha = 0.912, this being
appropriate for ordinal data [38].
2.5. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Subsequently, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using SEM methodology [34],
which examined the multivariate regression coefficient produced from structural equations.
Evaluation of the fit of the data to the model was conducted according to multiple criteria: χ2 / df,
comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean square error approximation (RMSEA). The literature
suggests that fit can be considered to be adequate when χ2 / df < 5, CFI > 0.90 and RMSEA < 0.08 [39].
The data were analysed through the statistical software packages SPSS 20, LISREIL v9.1 and PANTH
GRAHF.
Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 285 5 of 14
Given the existence of a questionnaire model with factor validation and evidence supporting the
discriminatory power of its items, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the
structural equation modelling (SEM) methodology. Through this we examined the multivariate
regression coefficients based on structural equations [34] in order to confirm the suitability of
indicators and evaluate the latent variables. With regards to the application of indexes of goodness
of fit between the derived data matrix and the matrix reproduced by the model, the difference
between them was not statistically significant, so we determined that both matrices were close,
indicating that the measurement model and the observed data fit together. This statistical test was
performed with N = 1302 and analysed with the software LISREL, version 9.1. The CFA is presented
through path diagrams, in which circles represent the latent variables and rectangles represent the
observed variables. Arrows with a single point are used to indicate the direction of influences, whilst
arrows with two points represent covariance between the four latent variables (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Schematic path graph of the questionnaire of vocational orientation of
pre-university students (M1).
The results of the CFA confirm adequate fit of the data to the model (M1). This model originates
from both exploratory factors and a theoretical model. Parsimonious fit was χ2 / df = 110.40/ 77.03;
CFI was .911 and (RMSEA) = .063 [90% CI = 0.053–0.085]. Though the scores produced were adequate
when two factors were eliminated, it is necessary to examine a number of other indices. The most
interesting of these is the root mean square error approximation (RMSEA), which was slightly below
the critical limit: 0.085. For this reason, focus is shifted to the adjusted model.
Examination of the CFA was conducted using SEM methodology via path analysis. Just as can
be observed in Figure 1, all of the regression weights were higher than .05, whilst covariance between
factors ranged between .12 and 1.52.
The evaluation conducted according to the SEM methodology verifies that the derived
coefficients show positive agreement with the theory employed to configure the measurement model,
with the exception of one weakly linked value.
In order to carry out the CFA, the ratio between the chi-squared output and degrees of freedom
was observed. NPAR (parsimonious measures designed to achieve structural adjustment), this
produced χ2/df = 2.965, with this value falling within the range of values accepted by Kline [31], being
lower than 3 (Table 1).
Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 285 6 of 14
Table 1. NPAR, χ2, df, p and χ2/df.
Model NPAR χ2 df
p
χ2/df
Default model 116 2324.605 696 0.000 2.965
Saturated model 781 0.000
0
Independence model 36 10,8798.913 752 0.000 13.652
Analysis of the multivariate regression coefficients was conducted through examination of the
covariance matrix of the observed variables. The program Lisrel 9.1 was used to carry this out.
The regression coefficients between the latent and observed variables are all positive in nature
and range between .12 and 1.52. The influence exercised by the latent variable over the observed
variables indicates that when the former increases by 1, the latter also increases to the same extent.
Eight items and four of the seven previous factors are conserved. The factors referring to PEBAU
were eliminated with the rest being regrouped, this meant the AFE items were eliminated.
The readjusted model (M2) arose following modification of the first model (Figure 1), with
inappropriate elements [40,41] from M1 being eliminated. Eight items and three of the four factors
from M1 were conserved.
In this way, the first factor is composed of elements related with the influence of the educational
level of the parents, with father’s education being as influential as mother’s education [10]. The
second factor is associated with the influence of parents, friendship groups, economic level and social
status on decision making with regards to the degree to be studied, and the activities developed by
the careers advisory services (for example, information about whether or not careers advisory
services were accessed, which activities were carried out in order to learn whether students knew the
university degree they wished to study) [12–14]. Finally, the third factor is associated with the
influence of the students’ personal interests when making academic decisions and their motivation
towards studying for an academic degree (for example, to exercise in the same profession as one’s
parents, to acquire a better socioeconomic status, etc.) [10,20,42].
It is interesting to consider the level of RMSEA and to establish CFI, Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI),
Normalized Fit Index (NFI) and Parsimonious Normalized Fit Index (PNFI) values (Table 2). Wald
and Lagrange [43] modification indices were used with approximation estimation values, in order to
make a comparison with the Lagrange multipliers and missing parameters from the model. The
Lagrange test suggests the introduction of new associations into the model, through a new second
order factor called a coexistence factor, which subsumes the fourth factor. At the same time the Wald
test suggests eliminating four elements and applying relationships between certain latent errors
(Table 2).
Table 2. Comparative summary of fit of goodness and specifying model.
Model CMIN P
Absolute Adjustment
Indices
Incremental Adjustment
Indexes
LO 90 HI 90
RMSEA PNFI NFI
CFI TLI
Model 1: 4 factors,
14 items
1727.6
0.00
0.083
0.087
0.063
0.775
0.888
0.911
0.867
Model 2: 3 factors,
1 second
834.6
0.00
0.065
0.078
0.045
0.730
0.935
0.928
0.926
order factor, 12
items
All of the outcomes from the model were well adjusted to relevant theory. Adjusted goodness
of fit, CFI and RMSEA values all satisfied the level of 0.045. This confirms is validity according to
previous research where adequate fit is considered at χ2 / df < 5, CFI > 0.90 and RMSEA < 0.08 [39]
(Figure 2).
Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 285 7 of 14
Figure 2. Schematic Path graph of the adjusted fit of the questionnaire of vocational orientation of
pre-university students (M2).
3. Discussion
The present research presents the results of the validation of a questionnaire to identify the
factors that influence academic degree choice. Whilst the individuals themselves have a strong
opinion about their own self-efficacy [44], there are other social agents and/or factors that have an
effect on this decision. The SEM methodology validates the construct according to a three-factor
structure. This denominated one factor as parental educational level, and influence of parents,
friendship groups, economic status and social status on decision making regarding what degree to
study. The final two were activities developed by the careers advisory services, and the influence of
student’s personal interests on making academic decisions and their motivation towards studying
for an academic degree. Overall, the results show the validity and reliability of the questionnaire,
demonstrated by the table of factor loadings, all of which show appropriate saturation.
From an educational point of view, the prevailing perception held by society is to continue with
university studies following completion of the Baccalaureate. This idea is socialised practically from
the day we are born. Using the words of Delors [45], education is “the passport to life”. However,
when the moment arrives to make this academic decision, we do not know if the choice is appropriate
or not. From this data, it is revealed that the basic factors influencing decision making are related to
the likes and interests of pupils. Parental orientations are then added to this, given that at these ages,
parental advice continues being important for students [46].
Analysis of the items demonstrates a positive overall correlation to the right of the item (ri-t) for
all items, with values between .016 and .641. The exploratory factor was produced using the
extraction method, having previously used goodness of fit and AFE indicators [47]. There are four
factors that explain 69.087% of total variance, with an orthogonal Equamax rotation and a limit in the
degree of the correlation between the variable and the factor proposed by Comrey [48], of 0.3 [32].
The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted through progressive verification of the
two structural equation models, with SEM being performed followed by adjustment according to a
set of fit indices [49]. M1 has a parsimonious index with PNFI being close to one. M2 is more complex
and hierarchical, thus being considered a more appropriate setting for the goodness of fit approach,
including RMSEA = 0.045 and CFI = 0.928 [50–53]. These structural equations allow each item to be
Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 285 8 of 14
evaluated and for viable modifications to be made, factors five and thirteen were eliminated and
fourteen was reset to factor three, taking a stepwise approach, until M2 is reached. This contains a
second order factor called the decision factor and three first order factors. These are the educational
level of parents, influence of parents, friendship groups, economic status and social status on decision
making, the influence of students’ own personal interests on making academic decisions, and
motivation towards studying for an academic degree. These data were drawn from a sample of
students from different secondary schools in a multicultural context, from which correlations were
calculated and a model was specified using exploratory factor analysis (EPT). From these, validity
was thoroughly demonstrated.
Internal consistency, estimated according to the index of Cronbach alpha, is considered adequate
for each of the considered factors. Despite this, it should be kept in mind that the model was modified
based on data drawn from a single specific sample. Thus, the capitalisation of chance through cross-
validation should be studied in order to extend the results beyond the population of the current
study.
With regards to other influential social factors steering academic choices, the students
recognised that friends are important for providing support but that their influence is not sufficient
enough for making decisions [20].
Recommendations of careers advisors are not considered by students at the moment of making
a decision. This provides a glimpse of the scant or complete lack of participation of these professionals
in this educational transition that is so important for students. In this sense, Martínez and Zurita [54]
point out that educational orientation and guidance is an indispensable key element within the
educational context.
The results also identify socioeconomic status as an influential factor in decision making. Within
the context that is the object of the present study, it determined the selection of educational options
close to the students’ place of residence whilst also considering the balance between costs and
expenses of embarking upon a university degree [21].
Instruments created previously for measuring students’ motivation evaluate the teaching–
learning processes that improve motivation [55–57]. However, the factors themselves that influence
motivation at the time of choosing a specific degree course have not been previously considered, this
was the central theme of the present research.
4. Conclusions
The present study provides as its main outcome the elaboration and validation of a measurement
instrument of the educational orientation and influential factors at the time of making an academic
choice in Compulsory Secondary Education and Baccalaureate students. It obtained good fit indices
in both the exploratory and confirmatory analyses. Validation reduced the scale to a total of 8 items,
which were grouped into three dimensions derived from the initial theoretical model – educational
level of parents-influence of parents, friendship groups, economic status and social status on decision
making, the influence of students’ personal interests when making academic decisions, and
motivation towards studying for an academic degree. From these results, the present research study,
in the same way as others [7,58,59], urges the need to initiate orientation and assessment processes
during the first years of secondary school.
The scarce and, at times, inexistent guidance received at these educational stages means that
families, specifically parents, influence decision making pertaining to studies. Friendships appear as
social agents that impact students’ educational decisions, however, these are not decisive at the time
of making an educational choice [10,14,20,42].
The absence of vocational guidance, a lack of information provision and fear of making mistakes
[38] are the main determinants leading students to be swayed by the opinions of their parents.
According to recent research studies, students have negative perceptions of their orientation and
require a training system in order to have broad and flexible training opportunities. Further, the
process of personal discovery should take place from early ages in order to strengthen the decision-
making capacity throughout the academic and professional journey [60–65].
Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 285 9 of 14
The present study outlines the need to involve careers advisory services as an essential aspect in
the training and professional development of the student body [66] for influence the subsequent
development of our working youth for attaining the skills and tools to entrepreneurship for future
job.
These conclusions propel us to continue conducting research on this topic, given that not many
sociological research studies deal with career orientation from a secondary and baccalaureate
educational perspective.
Author Contributions: M.d.C.O. and M.L.S., conceptualization. M.d.C.O. methodology, validation and J.M.C.R.
analysed the data. M.d.C.O. and M.L.S. writing—review and editing. M.d.C.O. supervision. All authors
contributed to data interpretation of statistical analysis. M.d.C.O., M.L.S. and J.M.C.R. wrote the paper with
significant input from M.d.C.O. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding: This research has been carried out within the project “Study of Training Needs of the University
Orientation of the Autonomous City of Melilla”. Subsidized by Projects excellence and projects Within the
collaboration agreement between the Autonomous City of Melilla and social groups and the University of
Granada (participants in the Project). This research was funded by Business Consulting (ASME), grant number
08/44900 Call 2018.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Appendix A.1. TEMPLATE OF THE ADMINISTERED QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Sex: ___ Female / ___ Male
2. How would you describe the socio-economic status of your family? ___ High ___ Medium___ Low
3. The educational level of your father is:
Qualifications
None
Primary education /
EGB
BUP
BUP + COU
Diploma/Degree
Masters
1st Year FP
2nd Year FP
4. The educational level of your mother is:
Qualifications
None
Primary education /
EGB
BUP
BUP + COU
Diploma/Degree
Masters
1st Year FP
2nd Year FP
5. When I had to choose my optional modules in CSE, my main influence was (CHOOSE ONLY ONE OPTION):
___ My likes and interests
___ My family
___ My friends
Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 285 10 of 14
___ The media
___ Advice from the Careers Advisory Service
What is the level of influence at the time of making
decisions?
STRONGL
Y
DISAGREE
DISAGREE UNSURE AGREE STRONGL
Y AGREE
6. The influence exerted by my parents on the selection
of my studies
7. Activities carried out by the Careers Advisory
Service at my educational centre were useful to me
when selecting my studies
8. The influence exerted by my friendship groups on
the selection of my studies
9. Economic and social influence over my study
choices
10. The influence of my own influences on the choice
of my studies
11. The main reason that I would like to study for an academic degree is (CHOOSE ONLY ONE OPTION)
__ It allows me to have the same profession as one of my parents
__ My family wants me to have an academic degree
__ If I study I will have a better economic status
__I will be able to exercise the profession that I like
12. Have you thought about what you will do if you do not get the PAU grade you need for the study option you have chosen
to pursue? (CHOOSE ONLY ONE OPTION):
___ Resit in September
___ Go for another degree that is highly similar to the first option I selected
___ The grade doesn’t concern me, only passing
___ I don’t know
13. Have you ever gone voluntarily to the Careers Advisory Service at your school/centre?
___ Never
___ No, because I don’t see the point of going
___ Yes, so that they would inform me about the options for the 3rd and 4th years of CSE
___ Yes, so that they would inform me about the Baccalaureate options
___ Yes, so that they would give me careers advice
14. Your Baccalaureate choice is related with the academic degree that you are going to choose?
___Yes, to a large extent ___ Somewhat ___No, not at all
15- In the case of a negative response, why did you choose to do it?
___ I was undecided about what I was going to do
___ It was the safest option
___ My parents forced me
___ The Careers Advisory Service advised me to
References
1. León, V.; Fernández-Díaz, M.J. Diseño y validación de una escala para evaluar el funcionamiento de las
tutorías en Educación Secundaria. Rev. Investig. Educ. 2019, 37, 525–541, doi:10.6018/rie.37.2.345251.
2. Martínez-Vicente, J.M.; García, I.; Segura, M.A. Características de los intereses inventariados y expresados
en educación secundaria. Soc. Española Pedagog. Bordón 2015, 67, 107–123.
Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 285 11 of 14
3. Castillo, J.C. Sociología de la Educación; Red Tercer Milenio, S.C.: Tlalnepantla, Estado de México, 2012.
4. Fajardo, F.; Maestre, M.; Felipe, E.; León del Barco, B.; Polo del Río, M.I. Análisis del rendimiento académico
de los alumnos de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria según las variables familiares. Educación XX1. 2017,
20, 209–232, doi:10.5944/educXX1.14475.
5. Corominas, E. Nuevas perspectivas de la orientación profesional para responder a los cambios y
necesidades de la sociedad de hoy. Estud. Sobre Educ. 2006, 11, 91–110.
6. Lozano, S. Validación de un modelo de medida de las dificultades en los procesos de toma de decisiones
sobre la carrera profesional. Rev. Educ. 2007, 343, 325–351.
7. Lozano, S.; Repetto, R. Las dificultades en el proceso de decisión vocacional en relación con: El género, el
curso académico y los intereses profesionales. Rev. Española Orientación Psicopedag. 2007, 18, 5–16.
8. Santana, L.E.; Feliciano, L. Dificultades en el proceso de toma de Decisiones académico-profesionales: El
reto de repensar la orientación en Bachillerato. Rev. Educ. 2009, 350, 323–350.
9. Areces, D.; Rodríguez, L.J.; Suárez, J.; De la Roca, Y.; Cueli, M. Information sources used by high school
students in the college degree choice. Psicothema 2016, 28, 253–259.
10. Cortés, A.; Conchado, A. Los contextos parentales y académicos y los valores laborales en la toma de
decisiones en Bachillerato. Estud. Sobre Educ. 2012, 22, 93–114.
11. Fernández, C.M.; Inda-Caro, M.; García-Pérez, O. Las elecciones académicas de los adolescentes del
bachillerato tecnológico desde las conversaciones con sus padres y madres. REOP 2016, 27, 76–90.
12. Dahling, J.; Thompson, M.N. Contextual supports and barriers to academic choices: A policy-capturing
analysis. J. Vocat. Behav. 2010, 77, 374–382.
13. Mcmahon, M.; Watson, M. Career psychology research challenges: A Systems theory response. S. Afr. J.
Psychol. 2009, 39, 184–194.
14. Shin, Y.J.; Kelly, K.R. Cross-cultural comparison of the effects of optimism, intrinsic motivation and family
relations on vocational identity. Career Dev. Q. 2013, 61, 141–160.
15. Dietrich, J.; Kracke, B.; Nurmi, J.E. Parents’ role in adolescents’ decision on a college major: A weekly diary
study. J. Vocat. Behav. 2011, 79, 134–144.
16. Metheny, J.; Mcwhirter, E.H. Contributions of social status and family Support to College students’ career
decision self-efficacy and outcome Expectations. J. Career Assesment 2013, 21, 378–394.
17. Noack, P.; Kracke, B.; Gniewosz, B.; Dietrich, J. Parental and school effects on students’ occupational
exploration: A longitudinal and multilevel analysis. J. Vocat. Behav. 2010, 77, 50–57.
18. Slaten, C.D.; Baskin, T. Examining the impact of peer and family belongingness on the career decision-
making difficulties of young adults: A path analytic approach. J. Career Assesment. 2014, 22, 59–74.
19. Keller, B.K.; Whiston, S.C. The role of parental influences on young adolescents’ career development. J.
Career Assesment 2008,16, 198–217.
Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 285 12 of 14
20. Rodríguez, M.C.; Peña, J.V.; Inda, M.M. “Estos es lo que me gusta y lo que voy a estudiar” Un estudio
cualitativo sobre la toma de decisiones académicas en bachillerato. Rev. Complut. Educ. 2016, 27, 1351–1368.
21. Morales, J. La orientación vocacional para la elección de carreras universitarias dirigida a estudiantes de
educación media. Rev. Int. Investig. Form. Educ. 2017, 2, 39–76.
22. Peña, J.C.; Soto, V.E.; Calderón, U.A. La influencia de la familia en la deserción escolar. Rev. Mex. Investig.
Educ. 2016, 21, 881–899.
23. Gámez, E., Marrero, H.; Díaz, J.M. Motivación interpersonal y metas vitales en estudiantes universitarios.
In Emoción y Motivación: Contribuciones Actuals; Etxebarría, I., Ed.; AME: Gipuzcoa, ES, Spain, 2008.
24. Domínguez, G., Álvarez, F.J.; López, A.M. Acción tutorial y orientación en el periodo de transición de la
educación secundaria a la universidad. La orientación al alumno de nuevo ingreso. REDU Rev. Docencia
Univ. 2013, 11, 221–241.
25. Vertsberger, D.; Gati, I. The Effectiveness of Sources of Support in Career Decision Making: A Two-Year
Follow-Up. J. Vocat. Behav. 2015, 89, 151–161, doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.06.004.
26. Martínez-Vicente, J.M. La Orientación y el Asesoramiento Vocacional, una necesidad constatada en nuestro
sistema educativo. Rev. Padres Maest. 2013, 353, 34–38.
27. Hernández, V. Análisis causal de los intereses profesionales en los estudiantes de secundaria. Tesis Doctoral;
Universidad Complutense de Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 2001. Available online: http://biblioteca.
ucm.es/tesis/edu/ucm-t25446.pdf (accessed on 16 November 2019).
28. Hernández, V. Evaluación de los intereses básicos académicos profesionales de los estudiantes de
secundaria. Rev. Española Orientación Psicopedag. 2004, 15, 117–141.
29. Martínez-Vicente, J.M. El asesoramiento vocacional y profesional a través del Self-Directed Search (SDS).
Electron. J. Educ. Psychol. 2007, 5, 233–258.
30. Rivas, F. Conducta y asesoramiento vocacional en el mundo de hoy? Electron. J. Educ. Psychol. 2007, 11, 5–14.
31. Rocabert, E. Indicadores de la Psicología Vocacional; Universidad de Valencia: Valencia, Spain, 2006.
32. Luque, M.; Olmos, M.C.; Tomé, M. An Exploratory Evaluation of an Educational Orientation Instrument
for Pre-University Students. Int. J. Learn. High. Educ. 2019, 26, 11–21, doi:10.18848/2327-
7955/CGP/v26i01/11-21.
33. Rizopoulos, D. ltm: An R package for latent variable modeling and item response theory analyses. J. Stat.
Softw. 2006, 17, 1–25.
34. González-Montesinos, M.J.; Backhoff, E. Validación de un cuestionario de contexto para evaluar sistemas
educativos con Modelos de Ecuaciones Estructurales. RELIEVE Rev. Electrónica Investig. Evaluación Educ.
2010, 16, 1–17.
35. Bruquetas, C.; Martín, R. La educación en las familias andaluzas: Expectativas, prácticas y rendimiento
escolar. Informe de resultados. Doc. Trab. 2012, 7, 2–35.
36. Harman, H.H. Modern Factor Analysis; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1976.
Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 285 13 of 14
37. Rodríguez, M.A.; García-Jiménez, E.; Amariles, P.; Rodríguez, A.; Faus, M.J. Revisión de tests de medición
del cumplimiento terapéutico utilizados en la práctica clínica. Atención Primaria 2008, 40, 413–417.
38. Elosua, P.; Zumbo, B. Reliability coefficients for ordinal response scales. Psicothema 2008, 20, 896–901.
39. Kline, R.B. Convergence of Structural Equation Modeling and Multilevel Modeling; London: SAGE Publications
Ltd, 2011. doi:10.4135/9781446268261.n31.
40. Batista-Foguet, J.M.; Coenders, G.; Alonso, J. Análisis factorial confirmatorio. Su utilidad en la validación
de cuestionarios relacionados con la salud. Med. Clínica. 2004, 122, 21–27.
41. Moreno, E.M.O.; de Luna, E.B.; Gómez, M.D.C.O.; López, J.E. Structural Equations Model (SEM) of a
questionnaire on the evaluation of intercultural secondary education classrooms. Suma Psicológica 2014, 21,
107–115.
42. Hirschi, A. Personality complexes in adolescence: Traits, interests, work values, and self-evaluations.
Personal. Individ. Differ. 2008, 45, 716–721.
43. Chou, C.-P.; Bentler, P.M. Modificación del modelo en el modelo de estructura de covarianza: Una
comparación entre la razón de probabilidad, el multiplicador de Lagrange y las pruebas de Wald. Investig.
Conduct. Multivariante 1990, 25, 115–136.
44. Salavera, C.; Usán, P. Influencia de los problemas internalizantes y externalizantes en la autoeficacia en
estudiantes de Secundaria. Rev. Investig. Educ. 2019, 37, 413–429, doi:10.6018/rie.37.2.323351.
45. Delors, J. La Educación Encierra un Tesoro; Siglo XXI: Madrid, Spain, 1996.
46. Santana, L.; Feliciano, L.; Cruz, A. El Programa de Orientación Educativa y Sociolaboral: Un instrumento
para facilitar la toma de decisiones en Educación Secundaria. Rev. Educ. 2010, 351, 73–105.
47. Martínez-Martínez, A.; Olmos-Gómez, M.D.C.; Tomé-Fernández, M.; Olmedo-Moreno, E.M. Analysis of
Psychometric Properties and Validation of the Personal Learning Environments Questionnaire (PLE) and
Social Integration of Unaccompanied Foreign Minors (MENA). Sustainability 2019, 11, 2903,
doi:10.3390/su11102903.
48. Comrey, A.L. Manual de Análisis Factorial; Cátedra: Madrid, Spain, 1985.
49. Joreskog, K.G. “LISRELVI.” Analysis of Llinear Structural Relationships by Maximum Likelihood, Instrumental
Variables, and Least Squares Methods; Scientific Software: Mooresville, Ind, NC, USA, 1984.
50. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with EQS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming; Routledge:
New York, USA, 2006.
51. Arbuckle, J.L. AMOS User’s Guide: Version 3.6; SmallWaters: Chicago, IL, USA, 1997.
52. Saris, W.E.; Stronkhorst, L.H. Causal Modelling in Nonexperimental Research: An Introduction to the LISREL
Approach; Sociometric Research Foundation: Amsterdam, Países Bajos, 1984; Volume 3.
53. Long, J. Covariance Structure Models: An Introduction to LISREL; Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative
Applications in the Social Sciences, 007–034; SAGE Publications Inc: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1990.
Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 285 14 of 14
54. Martínez-Martínez, A.; Zurita, F. El rol que tiene la influencia familiar y su nivel académico en los
itinerarios curriculares del estudiante de último curso. Educ. Siglo XXI 2014, 32, 267–286,
doi:10.6018/j/202251.
55. Alonso, J. Motivar en la Escuela, Motivar en la Familia; Morata: Madrid, Spain, 2005.
56. Cabanach, R.G.; Valle, A.; Gerpe, M.G.; Rodríguez, S.; Piñeiro, I.; Rosário, P. Diseño y validación de un
cuestionario de gestión motivacional. Rev. Psicodidática 2009, 14, 29–47.
57. Martínez Geijo, P. Aprender y enseñar: Los estilos de aprendizaje y de enseñanza desde la práctica de aula;
I.C.E. Universidad de Deusto: Bizkaia, Spain, 2007.
58. González, I.; García, F. Elaboración de un perfil de la orientación en la Educación Secundaria desde las
demandas de la comunidad educativa. Rev. Española Orientación Psicopedag. 2007, 18, 215–227.
59. Olivares, M.A.; De León, C.; Gutiérrez, P. El proceso de orientación profesional en los institutos de
Educación Secundaria. El caso de Córdoba. Rev. Española Orientación Psicopedag. 2010, 21, 81–92.
60. Bernardo, A.; Cervero, A.; Esteban, M.; Tuero, E.; Solano, P.; Casanova, J.R. Proyecto E-Orientación, una
necesidad desde el campo de la orientación educativa. Rev. d’Innovació Docent Univ. 2017, 9, 81–95.
61. Esteban, M.; Bernardo, A.; Cerezo, R. E-Orientación: Una metodología de orientación ubicua basada en la
autorregulación del aprendizaje. Libro de Actas del XI Foro Internacional Sobre la Evaluación de la Calidad de la
Investigación y de la Educación Superior; En Ramiro, M.T.; Ramiro-Sánchez, T. Bermudez, M. Paz (Comp.)
;AEPC: Granada, Spain, 2015; 47–51.
62. Huertas, A.; Pantoja, A. Efectos de un programa educativo basado en el uso de las TIC sobre el rendimiento
académico y la motivación del alumnado en la asignatura de tecnología de educación secundaria. Educación
XXI 2016, 19, 229–250.
63. Homs, O. Las perspectivas de la formación profesional. Rev. Padres Maest. 2014, 359, 1–4.
64. González, C.; González, N. Enseñar a transitar desde la Educación Primaria: El proyecto profesional y vital.
Rev. Electrónica Form. Profr. 2015, 18, 29–41.
65. Cano, R.; Castillo, S.; Casado, M.; Ponce, A. Estructura y organización de la orientación educative; En Cano,
R. (Coord.); Orientación y Tutoría con el Alumnado y Las Familias; Biblioteca Nueva: Madrid, Spain, 2013; 59–
110.
66. Martínez-Martínez, A.; Zurita-Ortega, F.; Castro-Sánchez, M.; Chacón-Cuberos, R.; Hinojo-Lucena, M.A.;
Espejo-Garcés, T. La elección de estudio superiores universitarios en estudiantes de último curso de
bachillerato y ciclos formativos. Rev. Electrónica Educ. 2016, 20, 1–18, doi:10.15359/ree.20-1.14.
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
