TPC-Journal-V3-Issue2

70 The Professional Counselor \Volume 3, Issue 2 validity with other measures of career indecision, including the Satisfaction with Career Scale, the Vocational Decision Making Difficulties Scale, and the Career Decision Scale (Slaney, Stafford, & Russell, 1981; Walker & Peterson, 2012). Satisfaction with Choice Question. The Satisfaction with Choice Question (SCQ; Zener & Schnuelle, 1972, 1976; modified by Holland, Gottfredson, & Nafziger, 1975) asks a single question, “How well satisfied are you with your first choice?” and is used to assess one’s level of satisfaction with career choice. This item is rated on a scale from one to six, and is scored as follows: 1 = well satisfied with choice; 2 = satisfied, but have a few doubts; 3 = not sure; 4 = dissatisfied and intend to remain; 5 = very dissatisfied and intend to change; and, 6 = undecided about my future career. Higher scores on the SCQ indicate greater dissatisfaction with career choice. Slaney et al. (1981) reported average correlations of .43, .53 and .44 between the SCQ and other measures of career decidedness, including the OAQ, Vocational Decision Making Difficulty Scale, and the Career Decision Scale. Student Data Sheet. A demographic form was used to collect basic information on each participant, including gender, age, ethnicity, major, grade level, and career decision state. The latter was measured with the OAQ and SCQ as measures of participants’ career decision state according to the level of career decidedness and satisfaction assessment. Preliminary t-tests indicated that the groups did not vary across age or gender, but Group 2, which received the YYC and EOF booklets, included more seniors and ethnic diversity. Results Several analyses were conducted to investigate participants’ ability to recall their SDS summary codes. For example, both 4 x 2 chi-square analyses and several 2 x 2 chi-square analyses were used to compare participants’ actual summary code and their recall of their summary code. Participants in Group 1 who received the computer-generated, individualized interpretive report were significantly more likely to accurately recall their overall summary code (84%), as compared with participants in Group 2 (YYC/EOF booklets) (61.5%, p < .05). Participants in Group 1 were significantly more likely to recall the first and third letters of their summary codes (84% and 88%), compared with participants in Group 2 (61.5% and 50%, p < .017), but there were no significant differences between the groups on the ability to recall the second letter of the summary code. Using items from the SDS Feedback Form, a series of 3 x 2 chi-square analyses were conducted to determine participants’ ability to expand, elaborate, narrow or confirm their occupational alternatives. Participants in Group 1 (interpretive report) were significantly more likely to expand their career options than those in Group 2 (72% vs. 57.6%, p < .05). However, participants in the two groups showed no significant differences in their ability to elaborate, confirm or narrow their options. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to investigate group differences between two aspects of career decision state. The independent variable was treatment (Groups 1 and 2), and the dependent variable was career decision state, as measured by the OAQ level of decidedness and the response to the SCQ. There were no statistically significant differences noted between treatment groups with respect to career decision state (decidedness and satisfaction) following use of the SDS. Finally, two independent-sampled t-test analyses were conducted to compare the impact of receiving different SDS:IR materials on the amount of time (calculated in minutes) participants spent with the interpretive materials and the number of times participants picked up the materials to review them. There were no significant differences between groups regarding either the amount of time or number of times spent reading the SDS interpretive materials. Although there were no differences between the two groups on the amount of time spent reading the interpretive materials, participants in both groups spent about 30 minutes reviewing the materials,