Group training on the improvement of college students'career decision-making self-efficacy

doi:10.4236/health.2010.26082

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Vol.2, No.6, 551-556 (2010) Health

doi:10.4236/health.2010.26082

Group training on the improvement of college students’

career decision-making self-efficacy

Jinliang Wang1,2, Dajun Zhang1,2*, Jingjin Shao3

1Center for Mental Health Education, Southwest University, Chongqing, China; *Corresponding Author: zhangdj@swu.edu.cn

2Research Institute of Educational Science, Southwest University, Chongqing, China

3Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Received 1 February 2010; revised 18 February 2010; accepted 21 February 2010.

ABSTRACT

A group training was conducted on 17 college

students to improve their career decision-making

self-efficacy (CDMSE). The result showed that

there was significant difference between the

pre-test and the post-test for the experimental

group (n = 17), whereas no significant difference

was found between the pre-test and the post-

test for the control group (n = 17). In the pre-test,

there was no significant difference between the

experimental group and the control group, and

obvious difference between the two groups was

found in the post-test. This indicated that the

group training was effective on improving the

CDMSE of the college students whose scores of

CDMSE were below 27% point of the total stu-

dents.

Keywords: College Student; Group Training;

Attribution Training;

Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy

1. INTRODUCTION

Career decision-making self-efficacy (CDMSE) is the

specific application of self-efficacy theory in the domain

of career studies. Based on Bandura’s self-efficacy the-

ory and Crites’s career maturity theory, Taylor and Betz

define CDMSE as the extent to which individuals’ be-

lieve that they can evaluate themselves, collect career

information, select goals, make plans, and resolve prob-

lems relevant to career decision-making [1]. It has been

found that CDMSE is of great importance to individuals

career development. Individuals with higher level of

CDMSE tend to be more active and positive in career

decision-making, while individuals with lower level of

CDMSE tend to be more passive and negative when

choosing careers [2-4].

With the reform of college students’ employment sys-

tem in China in late 1990s, college graduates have to

make their career choices by themselves, instead of wait-

ing to be distributed by the government. In this situation,

students are likely to feel confused and dazed and think

that they are not capable of selecting a suitable career for

themselves. Under many occasions, many graduates with

lower CDMSE choose jobs just for the salary or only

based on their parents’ views, they usually choose some

“hot” jobs beyond their abilities, interests and work val-

ues and exclude jobs that are actually in consistent with

their abilities and interests. Career decisions made in this

way are not mature and often lead to individuals’ unsat-

isfaction with their jobs and other negative emotions,

and result in a negative impact on their career develop-

ment. In addition, individuals with lower CDMSE usu-

ally feel anxious and depressed during their career deci-

sion- making and their mental health is negatively af-

fected. Therefore, it is urgent and necessary to design

intervention which can improve students’ decision-

making self-efficacy.

Group training is a kind of psychological counseling

conducted in a group context. Through means of obser-

vation, learning and experiencing during interpersonal

interaction, group training enables individuals to explore,

understand, and accept themselves, improve their inter-

personal relationships, acquire new attitudes and behav-

ioral styles, and develop good adaptation abilities. Group

training has been found to be an effective way to im-

prove college students’ CDMSE [5-8]. In group training,

by using such means as helping group members re-ex-

perience previous success, verbal persuasion, overcom-

ing the anxiety occurring in career decision-making,

providing modeling, and attributional training, counsel-

ors assist group members in self-evaluation, career in-

formation collection, goal setting, plan making, and so-

lution of problems. However, little empirical studies

based on the Chinese reality have been conducted on

improving college students’ CDMSE, which has blocked

J. L.Wang et al. / HEALTH 2 (2010) 551-556

552

subsequent studies in the domain of CDMSE. Moreover,

existing studies on CDMSE improvement were con-

ducted either by teaching students career deci-

sion-making skills or by attributional training, seldom

studies have combined the two means. As argued by

Borkowski, mere emphasis on individuals’ effort is not

enough, because great effort can not necessarily lead to

progress when individuals are directed by incorrect cog-

nitive strategies, which will decrease individuals’ confi-

dence [9]. Borkowski’s statement has implied the im-

portance of both internal attribution and career decision-

making skills. Therefore, in this study, we consider the

combination of attributional training and skills acquire-

ment to improve college students’ career decision-making

self-efficacy.

2. METHOD

2.1. Participants

Students were recruited from the Southwest University

in China through poster advertising. Career Decision-

making Self-efficacy Scale (CDMSE) was administrated

to the recruited students [10]. Students’ scores on CDMSE

scale were used as standard to select participants, 17

students whose scores were below 27% point of the total

students were randomly selected into the experimental

group (female = 12, male = 5), and another 17 students

with the same condition were selected into the control

group (female = 12, male = 5). No significant difference

existed between the two groups on CDMSE.

2.2. Instrument

2.2.1. Career Decision-making Self-efficacy

Scale

On the basis of Career Decision-making Self-efficacy

Scale by Betz and Taylor, according to the interview and

open-ended questionnaire, Peng developed this 39 items

Career Decision-making Self-efficacy Scale, which in-

cluded five dimensions: self-evaluation, information

collection, goal selection, plan making, and problem

solution [10]. The internal consistent coefficients of each

dimension were between .68 and .81, the internal con-

sistent coefficient of the total scale was .94.The retest

reliability of each dimension were between 0.51 and

0.60, the retest reliability of the total scale was 0.66.

2.2.2. Internal verse External Locus of Control

Scale

Individuals’ CDMSE was found to be significantly re-

lated with their attributional style, with individuals with

internal attribution having higher level of CDMSE while

external attribution individuals having lower level of

CDMSE. Attribution training has been shown to be effec-

tive in improving individuals’ CDMSE [11-13]. Hence, in

this study, we noticed the important role of positive at-

tributional training and used the Internal verse External

Locus of Control Scale as an assistant instrument. The

Internal verse External Locus of Control Scale including

29 items in this study was developed by Rotter [14]. The

score ranged from 0-23, with higher scores indicting

higher level of external locus of control. The internal

consistent coefficient was 0.70.

2.3. Intervention Program

The design of the intervention program was based on

career decision-making self-efficacy theory by Taylor

and Betz [1], while Bandura’s self-efficacy theory [15],

attribution theory, and other theories relevant to career

were also taken into consideration. The whole interven-

tion program can be divided into seven units, with each

units owning a specific topic, including ‘know about

your achievement’, ‘learn to search career information’,

‘understand your interest and ability’, ‘set career goals’,

‘plan your career’, ‘overcome difficulties’, and ‘take job

applications’. The group training included the following

activities and forms such as brain storm, role play, mod-

eling, verbal persuasion, group discussion, and games,

etc. During the group training, the experimenter noticed

to provide group members with encouragement and di-

rection, and to help them form positive attribution style.

At the end of each session, the group members were

asked to summarize their feelings towards the training.

The experimenter created an acceptable and supportive

atmosphere. Through group activities and interpersonal

interaction, the group members could attempt to feel the

positive experience, rebuild rational knowledge relevant

to career choice, learn career decision-making skills,

change their career-decision style from the improper and

immature one to the proper and mature one, which can

be used in realistic situation and therefore improve group

members’ CDMSE.

2.4. Implementation Progress

As a first step, assign participants into control group and

experimental group. Based on the concrete situation of

the experimental group members, we made modifica-

tions on the initial intervention program in order to make

the intervention more goal-directed and specific.

Second, the group training was conducted one session

each week, with each session lasting 90 minutes. The

participants in the control group received on training.

2.5. Follow up Study

The participants in the experimental group were investi-

gated again 3 months after the end of CDMSE group

training.

J. L.Wang et al. / HEALTH 2 (2010) 551-556

553

3. RESULTS

Career Decision-making Self-efficacy Scale and Internal

verse External Locus of Control Scale were used in the

pre-test and post-test. Data were analyzed with SPSS

12.0 software for Windows XP.

The comparison of CDMSE scores on pre-test and

post-test between the experimental and control group

was made (see Table 1).

As can be seen from Table 1, for the participants in

the experimental group, the scores on all the dimensions

and on the total scale in the post-test were significant

higher than scores in the pre-test (p < 0.001). However,

for the control group, except on the plan making dimen-

sion, no significant difference was found on other di-

mensions and on total score between the pre-test and the

post-test (p > 0.05).In the pre-test, no matter on all the

dimensions and on total scale, no significant difference

was found between the experimental group and the con-

trol group. However, in the post-test, the scores on all

dimensions and on total scale in the experimental group

were significantly higher than those in the control

groupmembers (p < 0.001). This indicated that the ex-

perimental group members’ CDMSE was significantly

improved after the group training.

The comparison of locus of control scores on pre-test

and post-test between the experimental and control

group was made (see Table 2).

As can be seen from Table 2, for the experimental

group, there was a significant difference between the

pre-test and post-test on scores of locus of control (p <

0.01), with the post-test scores higher than the pre-test

scores. For the control group, no such significant differ-

ence was found between the pre-test and the post-test (p

> 0.05). In the pre-test, there was no significant differ-

ence between the control group and experimental group

on the scores of locus of control. But significant differ-

ence between the two groups was observed after the

group training (p < 0.001), which indicated that the

group training had significantly improved experimental

group members’ internal locus of control.

Three months after the group training, another survey

of CDMSE using the same scale was conducted on the

experimental group members to check up the sustained

effects of the group training. The comparison between the

scores obtained immediately after the training and the

scores obtained three months later was made in Table 3.

Table 1. The comparison of CDMSE scores on pre-test and post-test between the experimental and control group.

Dimension Group Pre-test (n = 17) Mean ± SD Post-test(n = 17) Mean ± SD t value

Experimental group 2.44 ± 0.46 3.68 ± 0.63 5.61***

Self-evaluation Control group 2.39 ± 0.54 2.49 ± 0.55 2.28

t value –.29 –5.86***

Experimental group 2.33 ± 0.42 3.76 ± 0.57 7.13***

Information collection Control group 2.43 ± 0.49 2.52 ± 0.54 2.02

t value .18 –6.56***

Experimental group 2.12 ± 0.41 3.56 ± 0.55 8.62***

Goal setting Control group 2.15 ± 0.45 2.20 ± 0.42 2.16

t value 0.60 –7.45***

Experimental group 2.14 ± 0.43 3.40 ± 0.65 6.25***

Plan making Control group 2.13 ± 0.34 2.32 ± 0.36 4.95***

t value .66 –6.04***

Experimental group 2.24 ± 0.37 3.63 ± 0.56 8.04 ***

Problem solution Control group 2.31 ± 0.36 2.41 ± .45 2.14

t value 0.19 –7.00***

Experimental group 2.24 ± 0.33 3.60 ± 0.51 8.34***

Total scale Control group 2.28 ± 0.32 2.30 ± 0.36 2.42

t value 0.28 –7.89***

Note:

﹡

p<0.05;

﹡﹡

p<0.01;

﹡﹡﹡

p<0.001.

J. L.Wang et al. / HEALTH 2 (2010) 551-556

554

Table 2. The comparison of locus of control scores on pre-test and post-test between the experimental and control group.

Group Pre-test (n = 17) Mean ±SD Post-test (n = 17) Mean ± SD t value

Experimental group 15.82 ± 2.834 9.82 ± 2.32 –19.41***

Control group 15.41 ± 1.906 15.59 ± 2.35 0.24

t value –0.497 7.20***

Note:

﹡

p<0.05;

﹡﹡

p<0.01;

﹡﹡﹡

p<0.001.

Table 3. The comparison between the scores obtained immediately after the training and the scores obtained three months later.

Dimension Immediate after training (n = 17)

Mean ± SD

Three months after training (n = 17)

Mean ± SD t value

Self-evaluation 3.68 ± 0.63 3.58 ± 0.64 –1.89

Information collection 3.76 ± 0.57 3.67 ± 0.47 –1.93

Goal setting 3.56 ± 0.55 3.44 ± 0.53 –2.01

Plan making 3.40 ± 0.65 3.43 ± 0.55 –0.67

Problem solution 3.63 ± 0.56 3.63 ± 0.55 0.15

Total scale 3.60 ± 0.51 3.58 ± 0.52 –1.52

Note:

﹡

p<0.05;

﹡﹡

p<0.01;

﹡﹡﹡

p<0.001.

As can be seen from Table 3, no significant difference

was found between the scores obtained immediately

after the training and the scores obtained three months

later, despite a nonsignificant reduce on the dimension of

self-evaluation, information collection, goal selection,

plan making and on the total score (p > 0.05). This indi-

cated that the group training in this study has a sustained

effect on the improvement of CDMSE.

4. DISCUSSIONS

Group training is an assistant form of education on ca-

reer development. In this study it was found that group

training was effective on the improvement of CDMSE

and could facilitate individuals’ career planning devel-

opment. The group members in the experimental group

maintained a higher level of CDMSE three months after

the group training, showing the efficiency of this group

training. The reasons why the group training could

achieve success were due to the following aspects.

4.1. Effective Application of Group Training

According to the requirement of group training on the

number of group members, 17 students were included in

each group, in order to guarantee the interaction among

the members and the satisfaction of the different needs

of group members. With an atmosphere of ease and

safety, group training is a process in which group mem-

bers can explore and exchange ideas on the problems

they encounter. The group training in this study allowed

the group members to discuss problems relevant to ca-

reer choosing freely and openly. The group members

could get instant reactions, suggestions and directions

from both the other group members and the counselors,

which enabled them to understand, analyze, explore and

evaluate themselves more effectively and accurately and

to open up their career development according to their

own situation [16]. The counselors were aware of the

importance of interaction among group members, which

guaranteed a two-way communication. The counselors

and group members together drafted rules and goals for

the group, which were required to be obeyed by all

group members. In addition, the counselors noticed the

different requirements of different members. When the

group members got together, their feeling of loneliness

and alienation could be eliminated. Members in this at-

mosphere would effectively understand themselves and

others and establish their self-confidence. With the in-

teraction context and the ease and safety atmosphere,

group members were likely to take part in group activi-

ties actively, experience the outcomes resulting from

their behavior changes, acquire timely feedback from

other members and counselors, and then correct their

behaviors. Group members learned skills on dealing with

interpersonal relations and skills on problem solution,

obtained related experience, and improved their inter-

personal communication abilities. Besides, group train-

ing on career planning caused the group members realize

J. L.Wang et al. / HEALTH 2 (2010) 551-556

555

the significance of individual career counseling.

4.2. Intervention Based on Bandura’s

Self-efficacy Theory Has Guaranteed

the Effectiveness

As Bandura [15] has pointed out, individuals’ self-effi-

cacy is affected by such four factors as personal experi-

ence, modeling, verbal persuasion and emotion arousing.

In the present group training, Bandura’s self-efficacy

theory was effectively incorporated into the intervention.

Counselors allowed group members to recall their past

success experience, provided group members with in-

stant and positive feedback and encouragement, set

modeling for them, applied breath relaxation, muscle

relaxation, imagination relaxation techniques to help

group members overcome the anxiety they experience in

group activities.

4.3. The Comprehensive Application of

Various Theories on Career Choosing

and Career Development

The group training in present study was designed under

the direction of relevant theories on career development

and career choosing, including Holland’s career theory,

Ginzberg and Super’s career development theory, social

learning theory by Krumboltz, and social cognitive de-

velopment theory [16]. In his career theory, Holland has

assumed that most people can be divided into the fol-

lowing six types of personalities: realistic type, research

type, artistic type, social type, management type and

conventional type. He proposes that individuals’ career

choice should be in consistent with their personality

styles. The career development theory by Ginzberg and

Super has divided individuals’ career development into

five stages: growing up stage, exploration stage, estab-

lishment stage, maintenance stage, and declining stage.

Ginzberg holds that each stage has its own task and in-

dividuals should be well aware which stage they are at,

which reflects individuals’ career maturity degree. Super

believes that career choosing is actually individuals’

choosing the way to realize their self-conceptions. Indi-

viduals are answering the question “who am I” in

choosing their careers. The social learning theory by

Krumboltz holds that individuals’ career choice is influ-

enced by individuals’ genetic characteristic, environment

condition, experience learned in the past, skills acquired

in resolving new tasks and new problems, performance

standard, and individuals’ career values. Social devel-

opment theory focuses on individuals’ decision-making

process, during which five kinds of information proc-

essing skills are used, including communication, ana-

lyzing, synthesizing, evaluation and execution. When the

group training was designed, the theories above were

taken into consideration. For instance, in the unit “un-

derstand your interests and abilities”, Holland’s career-

personality matching theory was applied to help group

members understand their career personalities and inter-

ests correctly. Ginzberg and Super’s theory was em-

ployed in this unit to allow group members to answer

“Who am I” through means of group discussion and

brain storm, in order that group members have an accu-

rate and through understanding on themselves.

4.4. The Combination of Obtaining Career

Decision-making Skills and

Attributional Training

In previous studies, researchers either focused on the

acquirement of career decision-making skills or attribu-

tional training to improve individuals’ CDMSE [5-8,17].

Self-efficacy is individuals’ perceived abilities to ac-

complish certain tasks and is related with individuals’

cognition on themselves. Therefore, as a means to

change individuals’ locus of control, forming positive

attribution style through attrubitional training is an im-

portant means to help individuals know about their abili-

ties properly. However, as a complicated process, career

decision- making is affected by multi-aspect factors.

Therefore, if only the lack of effort is attributed as the

causes of failure in career decision-making and the skills

that are needed during career decision-making are ne-

glected, it is very likely that even individuals with posi-

tive attribution style are not able to reach a suitable ca-

reer choice, which will discourage them and cause them

depressed. Based on this consideration, Borkowski [9]

proposed that only stress on hard working is not enough

under many occasions; individuals who are lack of cor-

rect cognitive strategies will hardly make progress and

then frustrate themselves. Therefore, in this study we

combined the skills training with the attribution training,

which made our intervention effective.

5. LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR

FUTURE STUDY

In spite of the effective function of group training on

improving college students’ CDMSE in this study, limi-

tations still exist. Only students whose scores were be-

low 27% point of the total students were selected for the

group training, which had limited the significance of this

study. Students with high scores of CDMSE should be

included in the future study. In addition, the small num-

ber of subjects would great reduce the reliability of the

results based on objective interview and questionnaire.

We recommend that naturalistic observation method can

be used in the future study to further validate the effec-

tiveness of group training.

J. L.Wang et al. / HEALTH 2 (2010) 551-556

556

6. CONCLUSIONS

Group training can help college students form positive

attribution style and improve their CDMSE. Group

training on CDMSE has a sustained effect and can be

applied to the career counseling in reality.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was supported by the fund of Key Project ‘Strategies on

Cultivating College and Middle School Students’ Personality Traits’ at

Key Humanity Social Science Research Institute in Chongqing.

REFERENCES

[1] Taylor, K.M. and Betz, N.E. (1998) Applications of

self-efficacy theory to the understanding and treatment of

career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22(1),

63-81.

[2] Luzzo, D.A. (1993) Value of career-decision-making self-

efficacy in predicting career-decision-making attitudes and

skills. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40(2), 194-

197.

[3] Betz, N.E. and Hackett, G. (1981) The relationship of

career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived ca-

reer options in college women and men. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 28(5), 399-410.

[4] Clement, S. (1987) The self-efficacy expectations and

occupational preference of females and males. Journal of

Occupational Psychology, 60(3), 257-265.

[5] Krass, L.J. and Hughey, K.F. (1992) The impact of an

intervention on career decision-making self-efficacy and

career indecision. Professional School Counseling, 2(5),

384-391.

[6] Sullivan, K.B. and Mahalik, J.R. (2000) Increasing career

self-efficacy for women: Evaluating a group intervention.

Journal of Counseling and Development, 2000, 78(1),

54-62.

[7] Chartrand, M. J. and Rose, M. L. (1996) Career interven-

tions for at-risk populations: Incorporating social cogni-

tive influences. The Career Development Quarterly, 44

(4), 341-353.

[8] Luzzo, D.A. (1996) Attribution retraining increases ca-

reer decision-making self-efficacy. The Career Develop-

ment Quarterly, 44(3), 378-385.

[9] Borkowski, J.G., Weyhing, R. and Carr, M. (1988) Effect

of attributional retraining on strategy-based reading com-

prehension in learning-disabled student. Journal of Edu-

cational Psychology, 80(1), 46-53.

[10] Peng, Y.X. (2000) Development of career decision-

making self-efficacy scale. Published Postgraduate Dis-

sertation, Central China Normal University, Wuhan.

[11] Taylor, K.M. and Popma, J. (1990) An examination of

the relationships among career decision-making

self-efficacy, career salience, locus of control, and voca-

tional indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37(1),

347- 359.

[12] Rodriguez, M. and Blocher, D. (1988) A comparison of

two approaches to enhancing career maturity in Puerto

Rican college women. Journal of Counseling Psychology,

35(3), 275-280.

[13] Luzzo, D.A. (1994) Effects of verbal persuasion on the

career self-efficacy of college freshmen. California As-

sociation for Counseling and Development Journal, 14

(1), 31-34.

[14] Rotter, J.B. (1966) Generalized expectancies of internal

versus external control of reinforcements. Psychological

Monographs, 80(1), 609-609.

[15] Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying

theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84

(2), 191-215.

[16] Shen, Z.F. (2000) Psychological counseling on career.

Shanghai Educational Press, Shanghai.

[17] Li, B. and Wang, X. (2006) Group training on improving

women college students’ career decision-making self-ef-

ficacy. China Mental Health Journal, 20(11), 765-767.