3
Abridged Professional Manual for the
Career Decision-Making Profile (CDMP) questionnaire
Updated March 2011
Itamar Gati, PhD
The goal of the Career Decision-making ProfileQuestionnaire (CDMP) is to provide information about the way individual tend to make career decisions. This manual is aimed at providing information on the theoretical foundation underlying the Career Decision-making ProfileQuestionnaire (CDMP). It includes the rationale underlying the CDMP, its psychometric properties (reliability and validity), suggestions for possible uses of the questionnaire, and additional sources of relevant information.
Your comments and suggestions will be appreciated; please write to:
Content
Page
- The rationale of the Career Decision-Making Profile model …………….…2
- The multidimensional model of career decision-making profile………...…2-3
- The scoring and interpretation of the CDMP……………………………..….4
- Psychometric information on the CDMP………………………………….…5
- FAQ about the CDMP…………………………………………………….….6
- Sample items from the CDMP…………………… ……………………6
- An example of printed feedback from the online feedback …… ….…….. 7-9
Development Team & Sources of Support
The CDMP is based on research performed at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem by a team led by Prof. Itamar Gati. The team specializes in studying career decision-making in general, including difficulties encountered when making career decisions, the strategies used and the compromises involved, and developing computer-assisted career guidance systems that facilitate the decision-making process.
Current Team members: Yasmin Abo Foul, Reuma Gadassi, Tony Gutentag, Nimrod Levin, Valentina Izrailevitch, Maya Peretz, Dana Vertsberger
Previous Team members: Michal Eliakim, Shira Agasi, Shlomit Davidovitch, Shiri Tal, Lisa Asulin-Peretz.
Sources of support: The Israel Science Foundation. The development team thanks the following people for their cooperation and assistance in the development and research: Amira Dayan, Rona Masiach, and Halleli Wagman-Rolnik,
Copyright (c) 2010 Itamar Gati. All rights reserved.
The Rationale of the Multidimensional Model
Underlying the Career Decision-Making Profile (CDMP)
One of the most significant variables distinguishing career clients is the way they make decisions, or what is often referred to as their career decision-making (CDM) style (e.g., Harren, 1979; Johnson, 1978; Kelly & Gunn, 2007; Phillips & Pazienza, 1988; Walsh, 1987).
Previous research on CDM styles has focused on classifying individuals into a few types based on their most dominant characteristics, using a rather restricted repertoire of characteristics (e.g., Arroba, 1977; Harren, 1979; Jepsen, 1974; Johnson, 1978; Sagiv, 1999). The use of a dominant feature to describe an individual’s decision-making style provides a parsimonious way to characterize career clients. However, these typologies do not account for the complexity of the decision-making process or individual differences (Shiloh, Salton, & Sharabi, 2002).We suggest conceptualizing the way individuals make career decisions in terms of a profile rather than a style (Gati et al., 2010).
We use profile instead of style for two main reasons: (i) to indicate that we are dealing with a complex, multidimensional construct rather than a single dominant trait; and (ii) because “career decision-making style” suggests that personality characteristics are of greatest significance, whereas “career decision-making profile” suggests that individuals' personality and situation both influence their decision-making behavior.
The Multidimensional Model of Career Decision-Making Profile
Itamar Gati, Shiri Landman, Shlomit Davidovitch, Lisa Asulin-Peretz, and Reuma Gadassi, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, (2010), pp. 277-291.
Abstract
For full text, please write
Previous research on individual differences in career decision-making processes has often focused on classifying individuals into one of a few types of decision-making styles based on the most dominant trait or characteristic of their approach to the decision process (e.g., rational, intuitive, dependent; Harren, 1979). In this research, an alternative approach, which offers a multidimensional profile characterization of individuals' career decision-making processes based on the simultaneous consideration of dimensions, is presented. Thus, the proposed model refers to career decision-making profiles rather than career decision-making styles. The model, which emerged from a systematic analysis of previous research, was refined on the basis of preliminary empirical tests (5 samples, N=2764) using the Career Decision-Making Profile (CDMP) questionnaire. Study 1 reports the psychometric properties and the results of an exploratory factor analysis of the CDMP questionnaire, in a sample of young adults deliberating their career decisions (N=285). Study 2 presents the results of a confirmatory factor analysis, based on Israeli (N=431) and US (N=208) samples of young adults. The results of both studies supported the hypothesized structure of the model. The implications for future research and for counseling are discussed.
The 12 dimensions that are proposed for CDM profile, with their defining poles, are as follows:
IP - Information processing / (analytic vs. holistic) – the degree to which the individual analyzes information into its components, and processes the information according to these components.
LC - Locus of control / (internal vs. external) – the degree to which individuals believe they control their occupational future and feel that their decisions affect their career opportunities, or that these are mainly determined by external forces such as fate or luck.
EI - Effort invested in the process / (much vs. little) – the amount of time and mental effort individuals invests in the decision-making process.
PR - Procrastination / (high vs. low) – the degree to which the individual avoids or delays beginning or advancing through the career decision-making process.
SP - Speed of making the final decision / (fast vs. slow) – the length of time individuals need to make their final decision once the information has been collected and compiled.
CO - Consulting with others / (frequent vs. rare) – the extent to which individuals consult with others during the different stages of the decision process.
DO - Dependence on others / (high vs. low) – the degree to which individuals accept full responsibility for making their decision (even if they consult with others), as opposed to expecting others to make the decision for them.
DP - Desire to please others / (high vs. low) – the degree to which the individual attempts to satisfy the expectations of significant others (e.g., parents, partner, friends).
AI – Aspiration for an "ideal occupation" / (high vs. low) – the extent to which individuals strive for an occupation that is perfect for them.
WC - Willingness to compromise / (high vs. low) – the extent to which individuals are willing to be flexible about their preferred alternative when they encounter difficulties in actualizing it.
IN - Using intuition / (little vs. much) - the degree to which individuals rely on internal (gut) feelings when making a decision.
In addition to the 36 items representing the dimensions, the CDMP includes:
· One “warm-up” item: "I am concerned about choosing a major or an occupation".
· Two validity items aimed at ensuring that individuals reply only after properly reading the items and considering their responses. The validity items are: "I try to choose the option that is best for me" and "It makes no difference to me what career I will have in the future".
Scoring of the
Career Decision-Making Profile Questionnaire (CDMP)
CDMP e 39 –f key, 22 December, 2010, English CDMP ONLY
Adaptive / CDMP Eng1 / Warm up / Logical-
order
Yes / 28; 15;2 / Information gathering ( much ) / IG / 1
Yes / 29; 16; 3 / Information-processing ( analytic ) / IP / 2
Yes / 30; 17; 4 / Locus of control (internal ) / LC / 3
Yes / 31; 18; 5 / Effort invested in the process (much) / EI / 4
No / 32; 19; 6 / Procrastination (high) / PR / 5
Yes / 33; 20; 7 / Speed of making the final decision (fast) / SP / 6
Yes / 34; 21; 8 / Consultation with others (frequent) / CO / 7
No / 35; 22; 9 / Dependence on others (high) / DO / 8
No / 36; 23; 10 / Desire to please others (high) / DP / 9
No / 37; 24 ; 11 / Aspiration for an ideal occupation (high) / AI / 10
Yes / 38; 25; 12 / Willingness to compromise (high) / WC / 11
No / 39; 26; 13 / Intuitive (much) / IN / 12
27; 14 / Validity items
The score for each scale is the mean of the 3 items. NO total score for the CDMP
§ items that have to be reversed first (8-rating)- are in BOLD
§ Item 14 is expected to get high rating ( > 3 )
§ Item 27 is expected to get low rating ( < 5 )
Psychometric properties of the CDMP
Reliability of the CDMP
· Cronbach Alpha internal-consistency reliability for the 12 scales (3 items each) of the CDMP questionnaire for the Internet version in English (N=165) ranged from .72-.88 (median = .80).
· For the Hebrew Internet version the median Cronbach Alpha internal-consistency reliability of the 12 CDMP scales was .81 (range .75 to .88) in a sample of N=427; and median = .82 (range .70 to .87) in a sample of N=423; and median .85 (range .77 to .90) in a sample of N=273.
Test-Retest Reliability Estimates
· T1-T2 (2-weeks gap) correlations of the CDMP Hebrew version (N= 273) ranged from .75-86, with a median of .82; The within participants test-retest reliability across the 12 scales was also high: interquartile range .85-.94, median=.91.
One Year Stability
· T1-T2 (1-year gap) correlations of the CDMP Hebrew version (N= 182) ranged from .58-75, with a median of .62; The within participants 1-year stability (across the 12 scales was higher: interquartile range .63-.87, median=.81.
·
Validity of the CDMP model
· Exploratory factor analysis supported the structure of the theoretical model and questionnaire;
· Confirmatory factor analysis with a sixth Hebrew sample (N=431) supported the structure of 11 separate dimensions (with 3 items for each dimension), which cannot be combined into a single aggregate factor.
· Confirmatory factor analysis of the English version (N=208) also supported the multidimensional structure of the CDMP.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CDMP
Q: Is there a fee for using the CDMP?
A: There is no fee for the English Internet version of the CDMP. Additionally, the paper-and-pencil version (in English and in Hebrew) can be also obtained for research and counseling purposes without any fee, by writing directly to
Q: Can I use the CDMP for a masters or doctoral thesis?
A: Yes, write directly to
Q: How can I use the CDMP for research?
A: Previous research on career decision-making style have focused on differences in style between people, using the “dominant style" approach (e.g., rational, intuitive, dependent, Harren, 1979). The CDMP, which makes it possible to describe individuals in terms of a multidimensional profile, allows researchers to investigate the relations between individuals’ CDM profile and various career-related variables (e.g., career decision-making self-efficacy, career decision-making difficulties), as well as various career-related personality variables (e.g., MBTI, Big Five), in a more sophisticated and refined way. For example, it allows investigating whether some dimensions, such as personality traits, are more stable than others.
Q: How can I use the CDMP to provide better service for my clients?
A: The CDMP helps counselors assess their clients' career decision-making profile from the beginning of the intervention. This information may be used to better tailor the intervention to the client's particular profile.
Examples Items from the CDMP
I consider it important to choose the option that will satisfy my family and close friends.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree
I believe that I can find a perfect occupation that will satisfy all my wishes.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree
If I am not accepted for my first-choice major or training program, I will compromise and opt for my second choice.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree
I usually compare the alternatives by considering their advantages and disadvantages.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly agree
Example of feedback from the online version:
www.cddq.org
Career Decision-Making Profile questionnaire
The following feedback is organized into three parts:
The first part describes your personal career-decision making profile (style) using statements concerning those aspects that clearly characterize you.
The second part of the feedback will present you with dimensions in which you are not clearly characterized (since your answers in these dimensions were close to the mean and do not reflect a defined tendency).
Finally, you will be presented with our general recommendation regarding career-decision making.
Following are the dimensions in which your responses demonstrated a definite tendency and our recommendations:
Information gathering -
It seems that you do not tend to be systematic when making a decision; you are not inclined to gather all the information regarding the various possibilities or to examine the alternatives one by one. A more thorough gathering and processing of information will allow you to base your choice on more information, promoting the selection of a more suitable occupation. We recommend that you look for as much information as possible regarding the occupation of your choice. In your search for information, you may find that books, professional journal articles, visits to workplaces, conversations with professionals, and Internet sites are helpful.
Information-processing -
It seems that you are inclined towards making your decisions holistically. You regard each option as one complete unit, without distinguishing between its different aspects, and you make your choices based on an overall impression. However, even with your holistic information-processing style, you should gather a lot of information to increase your chances of intuitively choosing the best alternative. For example, visit different work places in order to see and experience the daily routine of possible occupations. This could help you base your occupational interests on a large body of knowledge and first-hand evaluations.
Locus of control -
It seems that you believe that external factors, such as destiny or important people in your life, will be very influential regarding your professional future. The consequences of your decisions depend more upon external factors than your own choice. However, to choose the occupation best suited for you and to increase the probability of being satisfied, it is advised to be more proactive in the decision-making process and not to leave it to destiny and other exterior factors. You should also acknowledge that a lack of initiative in the decision-making process is itself a decision.