 

.3
E...» n... .

)L.

ﬂ... 3:1 .
1.3.“: It}:
v x 5

. '
«Egabuwwr m...

3 .1? a

... I .59.».
1.3%,..ﬁn3 3.»
. ‘ L ﬂ, 5:“W
n.

 

 

 

 

4......

 

 

.“F.

 

“EL : . ..

THESiS

'7

 

lmwmmmmulnqwtwﬂwmi

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

'IHE CAREER SEIF-EFFICACY OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES:
A STUDY OF GENIIIR AND RACE
presented by

Manuela K. Kress

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph. D. degree m Rehabilitation Counselor
Education

«1391/

Major professor

 

 

Date [02" :9 ’ 9,6

MS U is an Afﬂrmau’w Action/Equal Opportunin Institution 0-12771

 

PLACE ll RETURN BOX to remove thin checkout irom your record.
TO AVOID F INES return on or More date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

V”- Gﬁ‘ ‘4.
' )): I l :10

i
WKI‘JEI l

JAN 1 I 200°
r393 83931

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Inethion
m

ulna-pd

 

THE CAREER SELF-EFFICACY OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES:

A STUDY OF GENDER AND RACE
By

Manuela K. Kress

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education

1996

ABSTRACT
THE CAREER SELF-EFFICACY 0F INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES:

A STUDY OF GENDER AND RACE

By

Manuela K. Kress

Although 49 million individuals in the United States have disabilities, very little
is known about their career development. Even less is known about the career
development of women with disabilities and ethnic/racial minorities with disabilities.
This study examined the career self-eﬁcacy of individuals with disabilities. The
sample consisted of 199 individuals with disabilities who were applying for services at
Michigan Jobs Commission, Rehabilitation Services ofﬁces throughout Michigan.
Study participants completed a demographic survey, the Occupational Self-Eﬁcacy
Scale (OSES) (Betz & Hackett, 1981) and the short form of the Task Speciﬁc
Occupational Self-Eﬁcacy Scale (TSOS S) (Osipow, Temple, & Rooney, 1993).

Using Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), this study
simultaneously examined the impacts of gender, race and onset of disability on career
self-eﬁcacy as measured by the OSES and TSOSS. Signiﬁcant gender effects were
found for four of the six measures of career self efﬁcacy (Traditional Male subscale of
the OSES; Verbal, Quantitative and Physical factors of the TSOSS), with males

scoring signiﬁcantly higher than females, indicating males had higher career self-

emcacy. Signiﬁcant effects were found for disability onset on three of the six
measures (Traditional Male subscale, Traditional Female subscale of the OSES; and
the Quantitative factor of the TSOSS), with individuals with adult onset disabilities
scoring signiﬁcantly higher than individuals with congenital onset disabilities,
indicating they had greater career self-eﬁcacy. Signiﬁcant race eﬁ‘ects were found for
four of the six measures (Traditional Male subscale of the OSES; Verbal, Physical and
Aesthetic factors of the T8088) with African Americans scoring signiﬁcantly higher
than Caucasians, indicating African Americans had higher career self—eﬁcacy. No
signiﬁcant interaction eﬁ'ects were found. Implications for future research and practice

are addressed.

To my sister and ﬁiend, Melissa.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project has been the culmination of many years of dreams and hard work
It is a project I would not have completed without the help and support of numerous
individuals. First and foremost I would like to thank my committee. Dr. Michael
Leahy has served as a mentor, adviser, role model, colleague and friend to me over the
past ten years. Without his guidance, support, and conﬁdence in me, this project
would not have been completed. Dr. Richard Coelho has had a major impact on my
career development over the past ten years as well, he also worked tirelessly in helping
me to complete this ﬁnal step in my education. Dr. Betsy Becker provided invaluable
assistance with thinking through the sampling ﬁarne, data collection and data analysis.
Dr. Nancy Crewe has been a constant source of support for the past ﬁve years, she
also provided valuable comments and many resources towards this project.
Dr. Robbie Steward provided valuable insight and comments which added greatly to
the quality of the ﬁnal product. Dr. Rochelle Habeck served on my guidance
committee and has helped me to appreciate the rigor of quality research.

The Michigan Jobs Commission, Rehabilitation Services opened its doors to

me to provide access to applicants and clients. I received assistance and support for

this project from the senior management team, the district managers, service
supervisors, counselors, and support staﬂ‘. Without them I would not have had access
to the over 200 individuals who participated in this study.

My family and ﬁiends have been there for me throughout this entire adventure.
My sister Melissa has been a constant source of inspiration, love and support for the
past ﬁve years. My colleague and ﬁiend, Dr. Susan Scully provided encouragement,
support and kept me going on many Sunday mornings. My best friend, Virginia
Thielsen, kept me going with her sense of humor and willingness to listen My dear
ﬁiend Kay Cunnington provided a constant source of encouragement over the past
two years, as well as spending endless hours checking my work My cousin Barbara,
my father and many of my ﬁiends and colleagues periodically checked on my progress
and provided advise and encouragement. I would also like to thank Dr. Charles
Krause, my surgeon. Also, Juliette Mackin and Holly Angelique, my oﬂicial
dissertation support group, who provided proofreading, helpﬁrl ideas, and a sounding .
board on many Friday mornings. -

And ﬁnally, I would like to thank the men and women with disabilities who

shared with me their time and perceptions, which are the basis of this project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................
Statement and signiﬁcance of the problem ............................................................
Purpose of the study ............................................................................................
Deﬁnition of terms ...............................................................................................
Assumptions and limitations ..................................................................................

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...........................................................................
Status of women with disabilities ..........................................................................
Psychological impact of being a woman with a disability ..................................
Financial impact of being a woman with a disability .........................................
Racial/ethnic minority women with disabilities .................................................
Self-eﬁicacy theory ..............................................................................................
Career self-eﬁicacy ..........................................................................................

Social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice and
performance ...............................................................................................
Self-efﬁcacy and rehabilitation .........................................................................
Career self-emcacy of women with disabilities .................................................
Career development .............................................................................................
Impact of gender on career development .........................................................
Impact of racial/ethnic minority status on career development .........................
Impact of disability on career development ......................................................
Successful career development of women with disabilities ...............................
Multiculturalism and rehabilitation counseling .................................................

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................
Subjects ...............................................................................................................
Description of the sample ................................................................................
Instrumentation ....................................................................................................
Occupational Self-Eﬁicacy Scale .....................................................................
Task Speciﬁc Occupational Self-Efﬁcacy Scale ..............................................
Demographic information ................................................................................
Field testing of the instruments ........................................................................

vii

ix

10
12
l4

16
16
20
21
22
23
25

32
33
35
36
36
39
42
47
48

53
53
53
58
61
63
64
6S

Procedure ............................................................................................................ 66

Design ............................................................................................................ 66
Data collection ................................................................................................ 67
Data analysis ........................................................................................................ 69
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 73
Characteristics of the sample ................................................................................ 73
MANOVA Results .............................................................................................. 91
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................... 102
Summary of results .............................................................................................. 102
Implications of the ﬁndings ................................................................................... 110
Limitations ........................................................................................................... 117
Implications for further research ........................................................................... 119
Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 122
APPENDIX
A ........................................................................................................................ 124
B ......................................................................................................................... 125
C .......................................................................................................................... 126
D ......................................................................................................................... 129
E .......................................................................................................................... 130
F .......................................................................................................................... 132
G ......................................................................................................................... 134
H ......................................................................................................................... 138
I ........................................................................................................................... 141
J ........................................................................................................................... 142
K. ........................................................................................................................ 143
L .......................................................................................................................... 145
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 147

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Respondents Categorized by Ofﬁce and Area ................................................... 74
2. Respondents Categorized by Gender, Race and Onset of Disability ................... 77
3. Respondents Categorized by Race and Onset of Disability ................................ 77
4. Mean Age of Respondents Categorized by Race and Age ................................. 78
5. Mean Age of Respondents Categorized by Disability Onset .............................. 78
6. Respondents Categorized by Gender and Marital Status ................................... 80
7. Respondents Categorized by Race and Marital Status ....................................... 81
8. Respondents Categorized by Disability Onset and Marital Status ...................... 82

9. Respondents Categorized by Gender and Highest Educational Level Attained. 83
10. Mean Number of Years of Paid Work History Since Age 18 of Respondents

Categorized by Race and Gender .................................................................. 85
11. Mean Number of Years of Paid Work History Since Age 18 of Respondents

Categorized by Disability Onset .................................................................... 85
12. Respondents Categorized by Gender, Race and Services Sought ....................... 88
13. Respondents Categorized by Gender, Race and Most Severe Disability ............. 89
14. MANOVA Results for Univariate F Test for Effect of Gender on TSOSS

Factors ........................................................................................................ 93

15. MANOVA Results for Univariate F Test for Eﬁ‘ect of Race on TSOSS Factors 93
16. MANOVA Results for Univariate F Test for Effect of Disability Onset on

~ TSOSS Factors ............................................................................................ 94

17. MANOVA Results for Univariate F Test for Effects of Gender on OSES

Subscales ..................................................................................................... 97
18. MANOVA Results for Univariate F Test for Effect of Race on OSES

Subscales ..................................................................................................... 97
19. MANOVA Results for Univariate F Test for Effect of Disability Onset on

OSES ........................................................................................................... 97
20. Traditionally Female Career Self-Efﬁcacy Scores as a Function of Gender and

Race ............................................................................................................. 98
21. Traditionally Male Career Self-Efﬁcacy Scores as a Function of Gender and

Race ............................................................................................................. 98
22. Task Speciﬁc Occupational Self-Efﬁcacy Factor Scores as a Function of

Gender and Race .......................................................................................... 99
23. Correlations Among General and Task Speciﬁc Self-Efﬁcacy Measures ............ 100
24. Cronbach’s Alpha Reliabilities for Task Speciﬁc Occupational Self-Emcacy

Scale Factor Scores and Occupational Self-Eﬂicacy Scale Scores ................. 101

ix

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Today, 25% of the North American population, or approximately 49 million
individuals in the United States, are classiﬁed as disabled (Nagler, 1993). The onset of
disability can occur at any point in the lifespan, before or during the birthing process,
during the deve10pmental years, through adulthood and into old age. Disability can
result ﬁom illness, disease or trauma.

The effects of disabilities and the range of reactions to them are as varied as
the individuals who experience disabilities. Vash (1981) refers to the study of the
psychology of disability as “the study of normative responses ﬁ'om (psychologically)
normal organisms to abnormal stirn "’ (p. xiii). A number of factors relating to the
nature of the disability affect the individual’s reaction to the disability, these include:
time and type of onset, types of functions impaired, severity, visibility, stability, and
the presence of pain (V ash, 1981). In addition, a number of person variables
(e.g., interests, values, goals, personality) have also been shown to aﬁ‘ect reaction to
disability. Gender has been identiﬁed as “perhaps the most obvious person variable
aﬁ‘ecting reaction to disablement” (Vash, 1981; p. 14). Finally, the interaction of the
individual, the disability, and the environment affects the impact of the disability on the

individual’s life.

2
Disability can aﬁ‘ect all facets of an individual’s life including their education,

socialization, recreation and employment. During the past century numerous pieces of
legislation and a variety of systems have been put in place to mediate the eﬁ‘ects of
disability. The main system in place to mediate the effects of disability on employment
is the public rehabilitation program. A primary focus of the public rehabilitation
program over the past 70 years has been to assist individuals with disabilities in
preparing for, ﬁnding and maintaining employment (Rubin & Roessler, 1995).
Vocational rehabilitation emerged from the passage of the Smith-Fess Act of 1920,
which provided federal grants to states for providing rehabilitation services to
individuals with disabilities. This early legislation was focused on vocational
rehabilitation services for individuals with physical disabilities. Federal funding for
rehabilitation services was expanded over the next 50 years through passage of the
Social Security Act of 1935, signing of the Vocational Rehabilitation Amendments of
1954, and during the 19608 through social security and welfare provisions. As ﬁrnding
for vocational services grew, additional services were provided to individuals with
disabilities. Services also expanded to include individuals with social, developmental,
and psychological disabilities (Rubin & Roessler, 1995).

During the late 19603 and early 1970s, as the political leadership changed, the
public rehabilitation program faced an uncertain ﬁiture (Rubin & Roessler, 1995).
However, in the early 19705, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a landmark piece of
legislation, was passed. This act mandated the public rehabilitation program to serve
individuals with severe disabilities and included provisions for client participation in

development of the individualized written rehabilitation plan, the plan used to guide

3
service provision. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was amended in 1984, 1986, and

most recently in 1992. The 1992 Reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act
re-emphasized the priority of employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities
and further strengthened the role of client involvement in the rehabilitation process
(Rubin & Roessler, 1995).

The public rehabilitation program is administered by vocational rehabilitation
agencies located throughout each state. These agencies are the primary entities
responsible for providing employment services to individuals with disabilities (Wright,
1980). Services that are provided by the public rehabilitation program include:
diagnosis and evaluation (e. g., psychological evaluation), counseling and guidance,
restoration (e.g., surgery, therapy, treatment, prosthesis, hospitalization),
transportation (e.g., car, van, cab fare), placement (referral to an employer and the
individual is hired), referral (referral to an employer), income maintenance (coverage
ofbasic liVing expenses), adjustment training (eg, work hardening), vocational '
training (e.g., cosmetology), other training (e.g., specialized schools for the deal),
college training, and on the job training. Today, the federal share of funding for the
public rehabilitation program is generally 80%, with states paying 20% of the costs
associated with administering the program (United States General Accounting Oﬁce,
1993)

A work disability has been deﬁned as a health condition or impairment that
limits the amount or kind of work an individual can do (United States General
Accounting Oﬁce, 1993). Criteria for eligibility for services for the public

rehabilitation program has changed over the years. Before the 1992 Reauthorization

4
of the Rehabilitation Act three criteria for eligibility existed: 1) medical certiﬁcation of

a physical or mental disabling condition, 2) evidence that the condition is a substantial
impediment to employment, and 3) a reasonable expectation that vocational
rehabilitation services will enhance employability. The Rehabilitation Act
Amendments of 1992 changed the third criteria for eligibility. It is now presumed that
an individual’s ernployability will be enhanced, unless the state agency administering
the public rehabilitation program can demonstrate otherwise (United States General
Accounting Oﬁice, 1993). Currently individuals with a wide range of disabilities are
served. These disabilities include: amputation, brain injury, cancer, cerebral palsy,
deaﬁress, epilepsy, mental illness, mental retardation, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord
injury, and substance abuse. In Michigan, individuals who are legally blind are served
by a separate agency, the Commission for the Blind.

Outcomes of the public rehabilitation program were classiﬁed by the United
States General Accounting Ofﬁce (1993) as short term and longtetm. Short term
employment outcomes for clients deemed “rehabilitated” included competitive
employment, homemaker, sheltered work and “other”. Long term outcomes of the
public rehabilitation program include the number of individuals who are working after
having received services, continuity of work, and earnings. Reports of the outcomes
of the public rehabilitation program have been mixed (United States General
Accounting Oﬁce, 1993). While a great number of individuals are served per year
(945,000 in ﬁscal year 1991) this is a ﬁ'action of the number of individuals who are
eligible for services, over 14 million (United States General Accounting Oﬁce, 1993).

In addition, Americans with disabilities are still more likely to be unemployed and

5
living in poverty than members of the non-disabled population (United States General

Accounting Oﬁce, 1993).

The situation is particularly poor for women with disabilities. The United
States General Accounting Oﬁce (1993) report on the eﬁ‘ectiveness of the public
rehabilitation program indicates that while women constitute 52% of the US. work
disabled population, they only constituted 43% of the individuals accepted for
vocational rehabilitation services (United States General Accounting Oﬁce, 1993).
This same report indicated that after having received services and being deemed
“rehabilitated,” men were more likely to be placed in competitive employment than
women. For individuals in each disability category (physical disabilities, emotional
disabilities, mental retardation) there was a signiﬁcant gender diﬁ‘erence in competitive
employment rates. For example, of individuals with physical disabilities who were
rehabilitated, 67% of women were placed in competitive employment as compared to
37% of men. Fully 29% of women with physical disabilities had their case closed
rehabilitated in the homemaker status, compared to 8% of the men (United States
General Accounting Oﬁice, 1993).

These statistics do not indicate why women were less likely to be placed
competitively, and more likely to be closed in a homemaker status. The average
number of service types received (e. g., diagnosis and evaluation, counseling and
guidance, restoration, transportation, placement) and the average cost of all purchased
services for women and men were virtually identical (United States General
Accounting Oﬁce, 1993). Men on average received a total of 3.7 services each, with

an average cost per person of $1 559 for all purchased services. Women on average

6
received a total of 3.6 services each with an average cost per person of $1593 for all

purchased services. While racial/ethnic differences were not examined in conjunction
with gender diﬁ‘erences, some differences were found in the services provided to
racial/ethnic minorities overall. Aﬁican Americans and Native Americans had the
lowest average cost of all purchased services, with Native Americans receiving $379
less in services and Aﬁican Americans receiving $293 less in services on average than
Caucasians. From this information, it is unclear why the public rehabilitation program
is less effective for women. Whether or not it is less effective for racial/ethnic minority
women was not speciﬁcally addressed but can be inferred ﬁom the information
available on women and individuals from racial/ethnic minority groups. .

Danek (1992) contends that something occurrs in the interactions of women
with disabilities with the “system” (public rehabilitation program) which leads them to
modify their original stated objective of competitive employment to one of
“homemaker.” Another possible explanation is that “something” failed to occur in the
interactions of women with disabilities with the “system” which led them to not attain
their original stated objective of competitive employment. In order for a woman with
a disability to attain her stated objective she needs to overcome the overt and subtle
barriers she is faced with as a result of being a woman and having a disability. Ifshe is
a member of an ethnic/racial minority group she needs to overcome the additional
discrimination she faces as a result of her race/ethnicity. If she was born with a
disability, she may need to overcome low parental or societal expectations. In order to
attain her vocational goal she needs to believe in her ability to successfully complete

tasks related to her vocational goal.

7
Career self—eﬁicacy is deﬁned as the individual’s belief in his or her capability

of successﬁllly completing tasks involved in or related to a domain of educational
and/or vocational behavior (W llliams & Betz, 1994). In the study of the career self-
eﬁicacy (e.g., Betz & Hackett, 1981; Williams & Betz, 1994), signiﬁcant gender
differences have consistently been found. For example, Betz and Hackett (1981)
found that males reported equivalent self-efﬁcacy both for traditionally female and
traditionally male occupations, whereas females reported signiﬁcantly higher self-
eﬁicacy for traditionally female occupations and signiﬁcantly lower self-eﬁcacy for
traditionally male occupations. Career self-emcacy can be measured at both the
occupational title level (e. g., secretary, physician) and the task speciﬁc level (e.g.,
work outdoors, lift and carry items). The four sources of expectation of self—eﬁcacy
are performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and
emotional arousal (Bandura, 1977). While a great deal of literature has been dedicated
to the study of self-efﬁcacy and career self-eﬁcacy, this work has minimally included
individuals who are members of racial/ethnic minorities, has not included the study of
individuals with disabilities, nor has it examined the combined impacts of gender,
disability and race.

Due to the lack of investigation in this area, it is diﬁcult to determine whether
or not self-eﬁcacy is a contributing factor to rehabilitation and placement efforts being
less successful for women and racial/ethnic minorities with disabilities. However, a
number of authors (Hershenson & Szymanski, 1992; Strausser, 1995) have advocated
for the application of career self-eﬁcacy theory to the study of the career development

of individuals with disabilities and speciﬁcally women with disabilities (Danek, 1992).

8
Because women with disabilities are faced with dual discrimination as a result of being

women and having a disability, their career self-efﬁcacy needs to be higher to
surmount these obstacles to career development. For racial and ethnic minority
women with disabilities this is ﬁlrther compounded by the discrimination faced due to
race or ethnicity. It is critical that research efforts address the career self-efﬁcacy of
women with disabilities to determine if diﬁ‘erences in career self-eﬁcacy are
contributing to lesser eﬁ‘ectiveness of rehabilitation and placement efforts and to
develop appropriate interventions.

Related studies have examined the impact of either gender, racial/ethnic
minority status, or disability on career development. Women’s career development
has been described as similar to men’s, but more complex (Fitzgerald & Crites, 1980).
Similar arguments have been made regarding the career development of individuals
with disabilities (Szymanski, Hershenson, Ettinger, & Enright, 1996) and the career
development of racial/ethnic minorities (Brown, 1995). Career development theories
have typically assumed a ﬁee and open labor market and have ignored various forms
of discrimination such as racial and ethnic discrimination or bias (Brown, 1995).
Brown (1995) reports that while the role of eﬁicacy expectations have been implicated
in the career behavior of Aﬁican Americans, much more research is needed.

In addition, onset of disability (congenital or adult) has also emerged as
important when examining the career development of individuals with disabilities
(Hershenson & Szymanski, 1992). Hershenson and Szymanski have argued for the
importance of looking at individuals with disabilities as two distinct groups, those who

were born with disabilities (congenital onset) and those who experienced disability

9
later in life (adult onset). Some authors have contended that onset of disability affects

the course that vocational development takes (Goldberg, 1992). However, there are
no clear conclusions regarding how onset of disability aﬁ‘ects career development.

It is therefore critical that research eﬁ‘orts take into consideration the combined
impacts of gender, race, and onset of disability on career development, and more

speciﬁcally career self-eﬁcacy.

Sgtement and Signr_ﬁ_° cage; 9f the Problm
Little is known about the career development and the career self-eﬁicacy of

individuals with disabilities. Very little research has been done on the career
development of individuals with disabilities. Only a few of the completed studies have
included the importance of the impact of racial/ethnic minority status. None of these
studies have taken gender into account. In the study of the career development of
racial/ethnic minorities, gender is rarely taken into account and disability is never
addressed. In addition, the research that has been done on the impact of gender on
career development rarely includes the issue of race and does not include the impact of
disability.

The career self-eﬁcacy of racial/ethnic minority and majority men and women
with disabilities need to be compared to determine if there are gender and/or
racial/ethnic diﬁ‘erences. While a number of authors advocate the application of career
self-eﬂicacy theory to individuals with disabilities (Danek, 1992, Hershenson &
Szymanski, 1992, Strausser, 1995), and have touted its promise, no empirical work

has been done in this area.

10
To date, all of the research efforts in this area have focused on either the

impact of gender on career self-eﬂicacy, the impact of gender on career development,

the impact of racial/ethnic minority status on career development or the immct of

disability on career development. No studies have brought together the impacts of

gender, race and disability on career self-eﬁcacy. Research in this area is needed in

order to understand the career development of individuals with disabilities and to

develop interventions that are both gender and culturally appropriate.
Wield!

The purpose of this study is to provide a foundation of knowledge on the
career self-emcacy of individuals with disabilities, while examining diﬂ'erences
attributable to gender, racial/ethnic minority status and onset of disability. This will be
accomplished through the measurement of the career self-eﬁcacy of individuals with
disabilities both at the occupational level and at the task speciﬁc level. This study is
the ﬁrst to apply career self-eﬁcacy theory to persons with disabilities. 1

The research questions are as follows:

1. Do women with disabilities have lower self-eﬁcacy ratings for
occupational tasks, occupations, or traditional versus non-traditional
occupations than men with disabilities?

2. Do individuals with congenital onset of disability have self-eﬁicacy
ratings that are equal to those for individuals with adult onset of
disability for occupational tasks, occupations, or traditional versus non-
traditional occupations?

3. Do individuals who are racial! ethnic minorities have lower self-eﬂicacy

11

ratings than individuals who are non-minorities for occupational tasks,

occupations, or traditional versus non-traditional occupations?
This study is unique and makes a contribution to the ﬁelds of rehabilitation counseling
and career counseling in a number of ways. This study represents the ﬁrst eﬁ‘ort to
assess the career self-eﬁicacy of women and men with disabilities, while
simultaneously assessing the impact of gender and racial/ethnic minority status.
Further, this study will measure career self-eﬁcacy at both an occupational and task
level. While a great deal of the literature has addressed a need for this type of study
(Danek, 1992; Hershenson & Szymanski, 1992; Szymanski, Hershenson, Ettinger, &
Enright (1996)), no empirical work has yet been done in this area. This study will
provide a foundation of knowledge for further research and is one of few studies to
integrate the bodies of literature ﬁ'om rehabilitation counseling, career development
and vocational psychology.

The knowledge gained from this study could have implications for practice,
including the development of interventions to increase the self—eﬁcacy of individuals
with disabilities that are gender and culturally appropriate, the assessment of career
self-efﬁcacy as part of career assessment and counseling; and subsequently, training of
rehabilitation counselors, career counselors and others who provide services to
individuals with disabilities. Ifdiﬂ‘erences in career self-efﬁcacy are found among the
groups included in this study, then an increase in career self-eﬁicacy may need to
become an explicit goal of working with these groups in the area of career
development. Individuals with lower career self-efﬁcacy need to be provided with

opportunities for successful performance to build a foundation for career self-eﬁicacy.

12
Successful role models may need to be targeted and verbal persuasion from a credible

source may nwd to be provided. In addition, efforts may need to be targeted to
decreasing anxiety and other negative emotional arousal which is associated with
lower self-eﬁcacy. Finally, this study will bring much-needed attention to the issue of

career develOpment of individuals with disabilities.

Definiticnnﬂemn

Micm'gan 1912s Commission, Michng RM’ ° atign Sgyiﬂ: The public
rehabilitation program in Michigan. Michigan Jobs Commission, Michigan
Rehabilitation Services (MJC, MRS) is a publicly funded agency that serves individuals
with disabilities. Through Michigan Jobs Commission, Michigan Rehabilitation
Services, individuals with all types of disabilities (e. g., physical, cognitive, psychiatric,
developmental, substance abuse) become eligible and receive a variety of services
designed to assist them with preparing for, obtaining and maintaining employment.
Services most commonly provided include but are not limited to the following:
diagnosis and evaluation, counseling and guidance, restoration, transportation
assistance, job placement, and referral. There are currently 3 5 MJC, MRS ﬁeld oﬁices
across the state. At this time, all states in the United States, have state/federal
rehabilitation omces.

Applicant for Services: Any individual who has completed an application to
receive services from Michigan Jobs Commission, Michigan Rehabilitation Services, or

has attended an oﬁentation-toaservices meeting.

l3
@‘entatipn-tp-Services Meeting: Any meeting held by Michigan Jobs

Commission, Michigan Rehabilitation Services for the purpose of providing applicants
for services with information regarding the agency. Orientation meetings can be held
individually or in groups.

Individual with p Disability: An individual who has a cognitive, physical,
emotional, developmental, or psychiatric impairment which interferes with her/his
ability to engage in life’s major areas of functioning including communication,

I mobility, personal care, relationships, and employment. Speciﬁc causes of disabilities
include, but are not limited to the following: traumatic brain injury, mental illness,
mental retardation, spinal cord injury, substance abuse, epilepsy, diabetes, cardio-
vascular disease, and amputation.

Wm; An individual’s belief in his or her capability to complete
successfully tasks involved in or related to a domain of educational and/or vocational
behavior (Williams & Betz, 1994).

1 Self-Eﬁm; An individual’s belief in her/his capacity to mobilize the physical,
intellectual, and emotional resources needed to succeed (Bandura, 1977; 1982; 1986).

Occupational Self-efﬁcacy: Career self-efﬁcacy which is measured at the
occupational title level (e.g., secretary, physician, lawyer). Occupational self-eﬁcacy
is calculated as a sum across self-efﬁcacy scores on a number of occupational titles
(Betz & Hackett, 1993).

Task Speciﬁc Occupational Self-efﬁcacy: Career self-efﬁcacy which is

measured at the task speciﬁc level (e.g., work outdoors, lift and carry items). Task

14
speciﬁc occupational self-efﬁcacy is measured at the task level and can be summed

across tasks for a factor score or totaled for a total score (Osipow & Rooney, 1989).
Ammptions @d Limitatiops

A major assumption underlying this study concerns the validity of individual
self-report in assessing career self-efﬁcacy. Because self—eﬂicacy and career self-
eﬁcacy are cognitions, self-report is a reasonable way to collect this type of
information and is an accepted way of obtaining information ﬁ'om individuals for this
type of study. Self-report has been the method of data collection for studies that have
examined self-eﬁcacy and career self-eﬁcacy in a variety of situations (Bandura,
1977; Betz & Hackett, 1981, Williams & Betz, 1994).

One limitation of this study concerns the generalizability of the results. The
study is limited to individuals with disabilities in Michigan who have applied for
services with Michigan Jobs Commission, Michigan Rehabilitation Services. An
assumption has been made that the individuals sampled are similar to other individuals
who apply for services and individuals with disabilities in the state, who have applied
for services in the past, or who may apply for services in the future. This study cuts
across disabilities and therefore should be representative of individuals with disabilities
in Michigan.

The public rehabilitation program is standardized across the country by virtue
of the federal regulations written by the federal government (Wright, 1980).
Individuals apply for and receive similar services. Standards for eligibility are federally
mandated by the Reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act of 1992. It is therefore

reasonable to expect that the results from this study would apply to other states as

15
well. It is also recognized that many individuals with disabilities do not apply for, or

receive services ﬁ'om, the state/federal vocational rehabilitation system. Individuals
with disabilities who have had the necessary supports available to them through their
families, teachers, ﬁiends, etc., or simply through their own resourceﬁllness, and have
been successful in negotiating both their education and employment, are unlikely to
access services through the state/federal system. These individuals usually access the
system only after their disability/condition worsens or if they experience an extended
job-loss period. Individuals who are not connected to any social service system are
also unlikely to access the public rehabilitation system. These individuals who are
institutionalized, whether in a nursing home or a state facility, are ﬁequently unaware
of the services available to them. Also, those individuals who have been through a
variety of systems, have a distrust of government agencies, or are simply unaware for
whatever reason of the services available to them will not access the state/federal
vocational rehabilitation system.

This sample is a convenience sample in that it is based on the current
conﬁguration of how the majority of career counseling, job development, and job
placement services are provided to individuals with disabilities. However, individuals
with disabilities will be seen at some service provision agencies/organizations for
employment services either under the current separate system of public rehabilitation
or in some other system. Individuals with disabilities will need to be provided with
individualized, appropriate career counseling services regardless of how the system(s)

that serve them are conﬁgured.

Chapter H
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The literature was reviewed to provide a context for the present study and to
identity measures for assessing career self—eﬁicacy. Literature in the areas of career
development, the application of career-self eﬂicacy theory, the status of women
with disabilities, and the status of racial/ethnic minorities was examined, in order to
make the connections necessary to address the career self-eﬁcacy of individuals with
disabilities while examining gender and racial/ethnic minority differences. A targeted
review of the literature was also conducted in the following areas: (a) self-efﬁcacy
theory, (b) career self-eﬁcacy, (c) self-eﬁcacy and rehabilitation, ((1) career self
eﬂicacy of women with disabilities, (e) career development, (i) the immct of gender
on career development, (g) the impact of racial/ethnic minority status on career
development, (h) the impact of onset of disability on career development, and
(i) multiculturalism and rehabilitation.

1th Status pf meep with Disabilities

This section will describe the demographic characteristics of women with
disabilities, provide an overview of the research conducted on the status of women
with disabilities, and emphasize the psychological and ﬁnancial impacts of being a
woman with a disability. Finally, issues speciﬁc to women of color with disabilities

will be addressed.

16

17

First, it is important to understand the characteristics of women with
disabilities. Women are represented in larger number in certain disability groups.
Women are more likely than men to have chronic physical conditions such as
hypertension, systemic lupus, erthematosus, diabetes, anemia, multiple sclerosis,
osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and other conditions which result in restricted
activity (Beardmore, 1993; Hall, Rohaly, & Shneider, 1993; Lewis, 1992; Strickland,
1988). Women are also more likely to be diagnosed with major depression, phobias,
and agoraphobia (McGrath, Keita, Strickland & Russo, 1990). Twenty-nine percent
of women use some form of psychotropic drug (Greer, 1986). Women are less likely
to sustain injuries resulting in traumatic brain injuries and spinal cord injuries (Hu &
Cressy, 1993; Wulz, 1993). Women are also less likely to receive a diagnosis of
mental retardation or to be labeled alcoholics (American Psychiatric Association,
1987).

The counseling literature and the career development literature have both been
addressing a variety of gender issues since the 1950s. Only recently and sporadically,
however, has the rehabilitation counseling literature examined the dual impact of
having a disability and being a woman. The status of women with disabilities,
identifying and addressing the issues that are unique to women with disabilities, and
service delivery system impacts on women with disabilities are relatively new topics of
inquiry.

Identifying and addressing the dual impacts of being a woman and having a

disability began receiving attention in the 19803. During the 19803 a number of

18

authors focused on the status of women with disabilities (Johnson & Rubin, 1986;
Kriegsman & Celotta, 1981; Myers & Wedl, 1985; Perlman, 1982; Tate, 1982; Weller
& Sipherd, 1982). Speciﬁcally, studies focused on gender differences in access to
rehabilitation services (Harrison & Wayne, 1986; Harrison & Wayne, 1987; Menz,
Hansen, Smith, Brown, Ford, & McCrowey, 1989). These studies found that women
with disabilities were less likely to access the public rehabilitation program. They also
showed that women were more likely to be older when accessing the system and were
more likely to apply for services when their marital and/or economic situation had
changed. Women who applied for services were more likely to be divorced, separated
or widowed than the men who applied.

Gender diﬂ‘erences in outcomes were also found (Danek & Lawrence, 1984;
Menz, Hansen, Smith, Brown, Ford & McCrowey, 1989). Menz et al. (1989)
reported serious inequities in the impacts of the public rehabilitation program for men
and women with disabilities. They found that women with disabilities did not beneﬁt
ﬁom services provided to the same degree as men did. For example, earnings and
occupational success rates after receiving rehabilitation services were higher for men.

Gender differences in salaries were also found. Johnson and Lambrinos (1985)
in their study of wage diﬂ‘erentials found that while wage diﬁ’erentials exist for men
with disabilities, close to one halfof the wage differential for women with disabilities
can be attributed to discrimination. Gender differences in vocational interests were
also found (Holvey, Partridge & Wagner, 1986). A number of authors addressed

women with disabilities as a special population (Harris & Hollingsworth, 1980;

l9

Holcomb, 1984; Hollingsworth & Harris, 1980; Kriegsman & Bregrnan, 1985; Lesh &
Marshall, 1984). In addition, organizations such as the National Rehabilitation
Association focused their time and energies on the study of issues particularly relevant
to women with disabilities.

Several issues become evident ﬁom the empirical work done in the 19803.

A Rghsb Brigf (1983) devoted to the topic of women and rehabilitation and based on
the 1982 Switzer Memorial Seminar, cited several problems faced by women in
rehabilitation as both clients and counselors. Unemployment rates for women; under-
representation of women at policy-setting levels; and the triple jeopardy of being a
female, disabled and a minority group member were all reported. Also included was
the need for women to be more assertive as both consumers of services and
practitioners.

Results of these studies painted a bleak picture of what it was like to be a
woman with a disability. In fact, commonly used terms to descnbc women with
disabilities became “double discrimination” and “double jeopardy.” However, Morris
(1993) argues that use of language when referring to women with disabilities,
particularly the term “double disadvantage,” contributes to the images of disadvantage
and thereby contributes to the oppression of women with disabilities and women of
color with disabilities.

By the end of the 19803 much of the work focusing on women with disabilities
had dwindled. Recently, Danek (1992) asked, “And what of women with disabilities”

(p. 7), refening to the lack of continued work focusing on women with disabilities,

20

particularly in the mainstream rehabilitation literature. Thurer (1982) argues that the
dearth of literature suggests a certain bias and that the special needs of women with
disabilities have not been recognized. Danek (1992) reminds us that while women and
men with disabilities have many issues in common, to ignore the special circumstances
of women with disabilities is to “deny them validation as both women and women with
disabilities” (p. 7).
h l ' Im f Be' ° a ° iii

A number of authors have examined the psychological impact of being a
woman with a disability (Darling, 1979; Asch & Fine, 1988; Weinberg, 1976). Fine
and Asch (1988) describe the terms “female” and “disabled” as redundant. They
contend that women with disabilities are more likely than men to identify as “disabled”
and are more likely than men with disabilities to internalize society’s rejection.
Weinberg (1976) found that in studying self concept, level of disability was less related
to negative self concept than was gender. Women reported having more negative
feelings than either disabled or non-disabled males. Darling (1 97 9) found that disabled
girls had lower self-esteem than disabled boys, non-disabled boys, and non-disabled
girls. In addition, Fine and Asch (1988) report that ‘ﬁvomen are more likely than men
to be limited or prevented from working because of a disability, are likely to
experience a higher degree of work disability at an earlier age than men, and are more

likely to be without a spouse” (p. 308).

21

Financial Impggs pf Being s mean with a Disabiligy

Other studies have examined the ﬁnancial impact of being a woman with a
disability (Kutza, 1981; Mudrick, 1988; President’s Committee on Employment of
People with Disabilities, 1994). Women with disabilities have the highest
unemployment rate when compared to men with disabilities and the non-disabled
(President’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilties, 1994), are less
likely to receive beneﬁts, and when they do, tend to receive fewer beneﬁts (Kutza,
1981; Mudrick, 1988). Women with disabilities are more likely to receive public
assistance than employment related beneﬁts (Kutza, 1981; Mudrick, 1988). For
example, women with disabilities are more likely to receive welfare or Supplemental
Security Income, both of which provide a minimal amount of ﬁnancial assistance
leading to a lifestyle below or at poverty level (Kutza, 1981; Mudrick, 1988), rather
than receive Social Security Disability Insurance or Worker’s Compensation. Kutza
(1981) and Mudrick (1988) both concluded that major disability and rehabilitation
programs such as vocational rehabilitation, veteran’s disability programs, disability
insurance, and worker’s compensation, because of their ties to labor market
participation, disadvantage women with disabilities.

In essence, a woman with a disability is caught in a difﬁcult situation. She
faces greater diﬁiculties in obtaining employment due to the external barrier of
discrimination, as a result of being a woman and having a disability. She is less likely
to access services such as vocational rehabilitation (Harrison & Wayne, 1986) and

when she does she is less likely to be placed in competitive employment (Danek, 1992;

22

Menz, Hansen, Smith, Brown, Ford, & McCrowey, 1989; United States General
Accounting Oﬁice, 1993). She is also less likely, due to her weaker work history, to be
eligible for beneﬁts tied to employment. While no empirical studies have been done in
this area, it poses an interesting question for those women who were injured on the job
and who do receive social security disability income and/or worker’s compensation, if
thisamountwouldbelessthanamanwould receivedueto differential salaryscales
based on gender. By their very nature, beneﬁt programs which are based on labor
market participation compound the discrimination against women with disabilities and
contribute to the poor ﬁnancial status ofwomen with disabilities (Thurer, 1991).

'c ri W ° h Di " '

A subset of women with disabilities, women of color, are said to be in “triple
jeopardy”. They have the lowest employment rate and are the most likely to have
multiple and chronic disabilities. In fact, women with disabilities constitute over 60%
of the population of Aﬁican Americans with disabilities (Hanna & Rogovsky, 1992).
Upon examining census data, Hanna and Rogovsky found that in the 40-49 age
bracket, 42% of Aﬁican American women had one or more disabilities. This
proportion can be compared with 25% of European American women in the same age
group. Hanna and Rogovsky (1992) contend that the socioeconomic status of Aﬁican
American women with disabilities is worse than would be predicted on the basis of
being female, Aﬁican American and disabled. In their estimation, there is not only an

additive but a multiplicative effect ﬁ'om being female, Aﬁican American and disabled.

23

While there is an emerging body of literature on rehabilitation and multicultural
cheats, very few articles exist which examine women of color with disabilities. While
very few articles address the impact of being a woman, Aﬁican American, and having
a disability, there are no studies that examine being Latina, Native American, or a
member of any other ethnic minority group, being a woman and having a disability.
When examining the literature it becomes evident that for women with disabilities, the
impact of race is an additional variable that needs to be considered. The current status
of women with disabilities provides a backdrop to the proposed study and highlights
the importance of studying women with disabilities as a distinct population (with
racial/ethnic minority status as a separate variable). The proposed study will include
racial/ethnic minority status as a variable when measuring the career self-eﬁcacy of
women with disabilities.

Self-Ellipse): Thgpry

Self-eﬁcacy theory was proposed by Bandura (1977) as an “integrative
theoretical framework to explain and to predict psychological changes achieved by
diﬁ‘erent modes of treatment” (p. 191). Self-efﬁcacy is deﬁned as an individual’s belief
in her/his capacity to mobilize the physical, intellectual and emotional resources
needed to succeed (Bandura, 1977). Efficacy expectations determine whether or not
behavior will be initiated, how much effort will be expended and how long behavior
will be sustained in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences. Eﬁicacy
expectations vary on dimensions of magnitude (typically referred to in the literature as

level), strength and generality. Magnitude (or level) is the degree of diﬂiculty of tasks

24

that the individual feels capable of attempting. Strength refers to the durability of
eﬁcacy expectations when the individual is confronted with disconﬁrming experiences
and generality is how generalizeable the efﬁcacy expectation is to other tasks.

Four sources of expectation of self-efﬁcacy exist: performance
accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological states
(emotional arousal). Repeated successful experiences (performance accomplishments)
contribute to a sense of personal mastery and raise mastery expectations. Similarly,
repeated experiences of personal failure lead to lowered expectations of mastery.
Timing is also important in that after strong eﬁicacy expectations have been
developed, occassional experiences of failure have less of a negative impact. Vicarious
experiences, or watching others perfonn a task, while not as dependable a source of
eﬁcacy expectations, also contribute to an individual’s sense of self-eﬁcacy.
However, these eﬂicacy expectations are likely to be weaker and more subject to
change. With this source of eﬁcacy expectations, clarity of the outcomes is
important. In other words, if a behavior is modeled and a successﬁll outcome is
evident, the model will be a better source of efﬁcacy information than if the outcome is
unclear. Verbal persuasion, or suggestion, provides a less reliable source of eﬁcacy
expectations than performance or vicarious experiences. Mastery expectations
induced by verbal persuasion are less likely to stand up to challenges to them.
However, the perceived characteristics of the source of the verbal persuasion,
including credibility, prestige, and trustworthiness have an impact on the persuasion.

The ﬁnal source of eﬂicacy expectations is physiological states or emotional arousal.

25

Physiological arousal typically has a negative impact on efﬁcacy expectations. States
of high emotional arousal such as fear, panic, and anxiety contribute to lower emcacy
expectations (Bandura, 1977).

Bandura’s self-emcacy theory has been applied to the treatment of various
issues in the counseling and psychology literature. Williams (1993) found over 600
citations of applications of self-emcacy theory. In general, the ﬁndings support that
“the higher the level of perceived self-eﬁcacy, the greater the performance
accomplishments” (Bandura, 1982, p. 127). “
Wm

Career self-eﬁcacy has been described as one of the most heuristically and
practically useful concepts in career assessment and counseling
(Lent & Hackett, 1987). It is deﬁned as an individual’s belief in his or her capability to
successﬁllly complete tasks involved in or related to a domain of educational and/or
vocational behavior (Williams & Betz, 1994). Career self-eﬁcacy is a career-related
cognition which has received a considerable amount of attention in the career literature
and warrants routine consideration in the career assessment of women (Hackett &
Lonborg, 1993).

In 1981, Hackett and Betz applied Bandura’s self-efﬁcacy theory to the study
of women’s career development. Hackett and Betz concluded that as a result of their
socialization experiences, women lack strong self-efﬁcacy in relationship to many
career-related behaviors, leading them to fail to fully realize their capabilities and

talents in career pursuits. Hackett and Betz believed that studying the cognitive

26

processes that mediate socialization experiences, career choice and achievement would
lead to greater understanding of women’s vocational behaviors.

Hackett and Betz (1981) maintain that while self-eﬁicacy expectations affect
both men and women; women’s self-efﬁcacy is coupled with external barriers
inchlding sexual discrimination, sexual harrassment, lack of career supports and a lack
of role models. Therefore women require a strong sense of career self-eﬁcacy in
order to be able to overcome external barriers to career choice and career
development. At this point in their work, Hackett and Betz were hypothesizing that
career self-eﬁcacy would be lower, weaker and less generalized for women than for
men. They outlined how socialimtion experiences for typical women (greater
involvement in domestic and nurturance activities, lack of exposure to female role
models representing the full range of career options, higher levels of anxiety and lack
of encouragement or discouragement toward non-traditional pursuits) as sources of
eﬁcacy information affected career-related’self-eﬁicacy for women. This seminal
piece called for the application of Bandura’s self-efﬁcacy theory to the study of career
development of women, advocated for the development of measures of career self-
efﬁcacy and encouraged counseling interventions to increase career self-eﬁcacy. Over
the years, this piece has also generated several dozen research studies. “Williams
(1993) cited over 60 studies as examples of work in the area of career self-efﬁcacy.

Betz and Hackett (1981) examined the relationship of career-related self-
eﬁcacy expectations to perceived career options of college undergraduates. This was

one of the ﬁrst empirical studies of its kind, employing the Occupational Self-Efﬁcacy

27

Scale, a measure which includes conﬁdence measures of completion of educational
requirements and job duties for ten traditionally female careers and ten traditionally
male careers. Subjects in this study were 134 female and 101 male undergraduates
enrolled in an introductory psychology course. Measures were obtained for self-
eﬂicacy expectations, conﬁdence in those self-eﬁcacy expectations, and interest in and
extent of consideration of each of the twenty occupations. Betz and Hackett found
that males reported equivalent self-eﬁcacy both for the traditionally female and
traditionally male occupations, whereas females reported signiﬁcantly higher self-
eﬁcacy for traditionally female occupations and signiﬁcantly lower self—eﬁcacy for
traditionally male occupations. They also found that self-eﬁcacy expectations were
related to the type and mrmber of occupations considered as well as reported interest
in traditionally male and traditionally female occupations.

‘ Taylor and Betz (1983) examined the relationship between self-efﬁcacy and
career indecision, by developing the Career Decision Making Self-Eﬁcacy Scale
(CDMSE), a measure of conﬁdence in completing tasks related to career decision
making. The CDMSE includes items in the following ﬁve areas related to career
decision making: goal selection, occupational information, problem solving, planning,
and self-appraisal. This instrument was developed with, and validated on, a college
student population and appears to be most appropriate for use with this population.
However, this study found a moderately strong relationship existed between career

decision-making self-efﬁcacy and career indecision.

28

Betz and Hackett (1986) in their review of empirical studies of career self-
eﬁcacy came to the conclusion that occupational self-emcacy plays an important role
in mediating the process of selecting a career. An additional conclusion ﬁ'om their
review was that the issue of generalizability needs to be addressed by using samples
other than college students. This concern was reiterated by Lent and Hackett (1987),
who stated that one of the major limitations in the reserarch on career self-eﬁcacy is
that the majority of the studies have been done with college students.

Currently career self-emcacy is primarily being measured at two levels, the
occupational title level and the task speciﬁc level. The two instruments that have
received the most empirical examination are the Occupational Self-Eﬁcacy Scale
(OSES) (Betz & Hackett, 1981) and the Task Speciﬁc Occupational Self-Eﬁcacy
Scale (TSOSS) (Osipow & Rooney, 1989). Williams and Betz (1994) examined the
relationship between occupational self-eﬁcacy and task speciﬁc self-eﬁcacy. They
administered the Short Form of the T8088 and the OSES to 111 male and 159 female
undergraduate psychology students. Although the age of the participants in this study
ranged from 17-51, the mean age of the participants was 20, with 62% of the sample
being ﬁrst year undergraduates. Signiﬁcant gender effects for both the OSES and the
T8088 were found. The authors also found an order effect in that self-efﬁcacy was
higher when the OSES was administered ﬁrst. The authors speculate that the
speciﬁcity of the T8088, which includes speciﬁc tasks related to occupations, is a
type of reality check for individuals versus the more global OSES which uses

occupational titles.

29

Williams and Betz (1994) found gender eﬂ‘ects for the total scores on both the
OSES and the T8088. The means on both measures were signiﬁcantly higher for
males. Males reported signiﬁcantly higher levels of self-eﬁcacy with respect to the
T8088 factors involving quantitative, scientiﬁc, business and logical skills as well as
those related to physical ability, all areas where males are socialized to expect
proﬁciency. On the OSES, males reported higher self-eﬁcacy on the traditionally
male occupations but no gender differences were found on the traditionally female
occupations. They also found a strong correlation between self-eﬂicacy with respect
to traditionally male occupations and the T8088 Factor 2 (Qlantitative, etc).

Williams and Betz concluded that although occupational and task-speciﬁc
self-eﬂicacy are related, the magnitude of the correlation between them is not
suﬁcient to suggest that they are redundant. This ﬁnding leads to the conclusion that
it is worthwhile to measure career self-aﬁcacy at both the occupational title level as
well as the task level.

Unfortunately, these studies and many others that have focused on career self
eﬁcacy (e.g., Blustein, 1989; Brown, Lapan, Boggs & Monill, 1989; Brown, Lent &
Larkin, 1989; Hackett & Campbell, 1987; Lent, Brown & Larkin, 1984) all relied on a
Caucasian undergraduate student population for the sample.

A few studies, Bores-Rangel et al. (1990), Church et al. (1992), Post-Kammer
and Smith (1985, 1986), Post, Stewart, and Smith (1991) have used measures of
career self-aﬁcacy with racial and ethnic minorities. PostaKammer and Smith (1986)

examined the relationship between sex and math/science career self-eﬂicacy. Using a

30

modiﬁed version of the Occupational Self Efﬁcacy Scale, they found gender
differences for educational requirements for math occupations (ie., engineer, drafter,
computer programmer). One conclusion the researchers drew was that females’
consideration of math careers is highly inﬂuenced by their conﬁdence in meeting
educational requirements for these careers. This lead them to the conclusion that the
consideration of careers is more complex for females. Although the participants in the
study included Aﬁican Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans and Native Americans,
comparisons by racial/ethnic groups were not made.

Post, Stewart and Smith (1991) examined the relationship between self-
eﬁicacy, interest, and consideration of math/science and non-math/science occupations
among 111 Black college Freshmen. Using a revised version of the Occupational Self-
Eﬁcacy Scale and regression analysis, the authors found that females considered a
more narrow range of occupations and that interest in an occupation played a more
important role in career consideration than for males. Males considered a wider range
of occupations and self-efﬁcacy and conﬁdence aﬁ‘ected their consideration of
occupations more so than for females. Interestingly, self-emcacy did not have an
impact on the consideration of non-math/science careers, only interest did. The
authors draw the conclusion that for Aﬁican American females, gender, not race, is the
reason for their underepresentation in math/science occupations. Because the study
consisted of only Aﬁican American students, no ethnic/racial comparisons were made.

Similar results were found by Post-Kammer and Smith (1985) when they

examined the relationship between sex, career self-efﬁcacy, and interests among 108

31

eighth and ninth grade students. Using the Occupational Self-Efﬁcacy Scale and a
series of MANOVAs, sex differences were found with the girls reporting higher self-
emcacy in regards to the educational requirements and job duties of the traditionally
female occupations. Boys reported higher self-eﬁcacy for the occupations of draﬁer
and engineer. In comparing this sample to the one used by Betz and Hackett (1981),
Post-Kammer and Smith found that there were less sex diﬁ’erences in the junior high
population than the college population in the Betz and Hackett study. The authors
provide a number of plausible explanations for this diﬁ‘erence including the time lapse
between the two studies, greater openness among younger students or a lack of clarity
among younger students about occupational requirements. Post-Kammer and Smith
found that for girls, self-eﬁcacy did not appear to be dominant enough to predict
interest in occupations. The comparison of their ﬁndings to those of Betz and
Hackett, lead the authors to question, will gender differences in self-eﬁcacy become
more pervasive with age or schooling? Unfortunately the authors did not report on
the racial/ethnic composition of their sample.

Bores-Rangel, Church, Szendre, and Reeves (1990) examined the relationship
between interests, incentives, occupational activities and self-eﬁcacy with a primarily
Hispanic population of High School Equivalency Program students. Using the
Occupational and Educational Activities Questionnaire to measure self-efﬁcacy, an
extent of consideration questionnaire, the USES Interest Inventory and the GATB, the
authors found a moderately positive relationship between extent of consideration of

occupational activities and each of the predictor variables-interest, self-eﬁcacy, and

32

incentives satisfaction. The authors also found strong support for their hypothesis that
self-eﬂicacy is more strongly related to extent of consideration of occupational
activities for those individuals with less generality of self-eﬁcacy (ie., weaker overall
self-eﬁcacy). This study had a small sample size (n=3 5) and few females (n=9), no
gender or ethnic diﬂ‘erences were examined.

A limitation of the studies that have been done in the area of career self-
eﬁcacy is that they have not simultaneously examined the eﬁ‘ects of race/ethnic
minority status and gender. An additional limitation of the work that has been
completed in this area is that currently no studies speciﬁcally address disability as an
independent variable or consider the relationship between career self-eﬂicacy and
disability. Oneofthe advantagesofthecurrent studyisthatitexpandsthecurrent
research on career self-eﬁcacy to a community based population that includes the
variable of disability, while simultaneously examining the eﬂ‘ects of gender and race.

or!“ usu- .~.. f an m Asa a: Intam, hi i an! “m. :u -

In 1994, Lent, Brown, and Hackett presented a social cognitive theory of
career and academic interest, choice and performance which included disability as a
person input. The conceptual framework attemped to “explain central, dynamic
processes and mechanisms through which (a) career and academic interests develop,
(b) career related event choices are forged and enacted, and (c) performance outcomes
are achieved.” As deﬁned in the social cognitive view, self-eﬁcacy is “a dynamic set
of self-beliefs that are speciﬁc to particular performance domains and that interact

complexly with other person, behavior, and contextual factors” (p. 83). More

33

speciﬁcally, in their model of how basic career interests develop over time, Lent et al.
(1994) predicted that sources of self-efﬁcacy and outcome expectations would lead to
self—eﬁcacy which in turn would aﬁ'ect outcome expectations, interest,
intentions/goals for activity involvement, activity selection and practice, and
performance attainments. In their model of person, contextual, and experiential
factors aﬁ‘ecting career choice behavior, self-eﬂicacy again held a central role. Person
inputs such as predisposition, gender, race/ethnicity, disability/health status and
background contextual aﬁ'ordances are seen as leading to learning experiences which
in turn lead to self-eﬁcacy and outcome expectations which together inﬂuence
interest, choice goals, choice actions and performance domains and attaimnents. This
theoretical piece is the ﬁrst work related to self-eﬁcacy stemming from the career

psychology literature that speciﬁcally includes the issue of disability.

 

Self-efﬁcacy has recently gained attention in the rehabilitation literature.
Strausser (1995) reviewed self-eﬂicacy theory and showed how the construct can be
applied to adjustment to disability and career development of individuals with
disabilities by rehabilitation counselors. Strausser advocates for the use of the
principles of self-eﬁcacy theory by rehabilitation counselors in conceptualizing client
problems, and in identifying intervention strategies to promote positive client
outcomes such as adjustment to disability and employment. Strausser also states that

self-eﬁcacy theory can provide a strong foundation for research “to better understand

34

the needs of people with disabilities and the development of more effective
intervention strategies” (p. 11).

Altmaier, Russell, Kao, Lehman, and Weinstein (1993) studied the role of self-
eﬁcacy in rehabilitation outcome among chronic low back pain patients. They found
that the greater the gains in self-eﬁcacy over the course of treatment for low back
pain, the lower the intensity of pain at follow up; and that gains in self-emcacy during
treatment were associated with improved functioning and self-reported pain at a 6
month follow up, indicating the lasting effects of increased self-efﬁcacy. They also
suggested that counselors working with rehabilitation clients should consider enhanced
self-eﬁcacy as an explicit goal of rehabilitation. Mitchell, Brodwin and Benoit (1990),
in their theoretical piece, apply self—efﬁcacy theory to individuals in the worker’s
compensation system. No empirical research has yet been published in this area

Hershenson and Szymanski (1992) encourage the application of Hackett and
Betz’s (1981) self-eﬁcacy approach for career development of women to individuals
with disabilities, citing similarities between women and individuals with disabilities
including few successful role models, environmental barriers, failure to utilize potential
and socialization to accept an inferior role. Similarly, in their examination of current
career development theories, Szymanski et al. (1996) ﬁnd self-efﬁcacy to be an
important individual mediating factor on career development. Szymanski et al.
describe the research on self-eﬁicacy in career development as quite promising and
important to the future research and practice with people with disabilities, especially

those with congenital disabilities.

35

er Self-Efﬁcacy of Women with Digbilities
To date, no studies have addressed the career self-emcacy of women with

disabilities. However, as stated above, a number of authors in the rehabilitation
literature (Hershenson & Szymanski, 1992; Szymanski, et al. 1996) have discussed the
appropriateness of the application of a career self-eﬁcacy approach to individuals with
disabilities. Danek (1992) speciﬁcally addressed the application of career self-eﬁcacy
to women with disabilities and describes self-efﬁcacy as a “particularly useﬁrl
construct” when addressing the vocational and career concerns of women with
disabilities.

While not using the term “self-efﬁcacy” per se, the work of Slappo and Katz
(1989) illustrates the importance of career self-eﬁcacy for women with disabilities. In
their study, women with disabilities in non-traditional professional careers reported
that the most serious problem unique to women with disabilities was that as a woman
with a disability there was a constant need to prove oneself on the job. In order for
the woman with a disability to have the endurance to constantly prove herself she
needs to have a high degree of self-efﬁcacy. The women in the Slappo and Katz study
described themselves as being high academic achievers, and reported a great deal of
personal initiative, persistence and assertiveness. Slappo and Katz hypothesize that
without personal initiative it is unlikely that these women would have entered a
nontraditional career. Their personal initiative paid oﬂ‘ in many ways for these women,
as rewards from the nontraditional careers included high salaries, personal satisfaction,

and intellectual and emotional stimulation.

36

Career Developmem
While no studies have addressed the combined impacts of disability, ethnic

minority status and gender on career development and very few studies have addressed
the dual impact of disability and gender on career development, numerous studies have
focused on either the impact of gender on career development, the impact of ethnic
minority status on career development or the impact of onset of disability on career
develOpment. This section draws information ﬁom these areas to inform the proposed
study.

WWW

Super (1957) notes that the ﬁrst citations speciﬁc to the study of women’s
career development date back to the 1940s, when the federal government was
studying the employment of women. This interest may have stemmed ﬁ'om the inﬂux
of women into the civilian and military labor forces during World War II to
compensate for the shortage of male workers.

Women’s career development has been described as similar to men’s but more
complex (Fitzgerald & Crites, 1980). Betz and Fitzgerald (1987) summarize the
factors that are generally found to facilitate women’s career development into the
following four areas: individual variables (high ability, liberated sex role values,
instrumentality, androgynous personality, high self-esteem, strong academic self
concept); background variables (working mother, supportive father, highly educated
parents, female role models, work experience as adolescent, androgynous upbringing);

educational variables (higher education, continuation in mathematics, girls’ schools

37

and womens’ colleges); and adult lifestyle variables (late marriage or single, no or few
children).

Additional factors that inﬂuence career development, and are primarily issues
for women, include: sexual harrassment, sexual discrimination, domestic violence and
role conﬂict. Campbell and Cellini’s (1981) diagnostic taxonomy of adult career
problems included career adjustment issues such as sexual harrassment and adverse oﬂ‘
the job personal circumstances or stressors. Forrest and Brooks (1993) attribute the
common career problems of women, such as limited career advancement, dual role
conﬂicts, restricted views of career options and conﬂicted or problematic relationships
in the work environment, as results of being female in a patriarchal society that views
women as inferior. Hackett and Lonborg (1993) address the need for gender and
gender related concerns to be assessed within career counseling. They argue that in
eﬂ’ective career counseling with women, the internal constraints and external barriers
on career choices must ﬁrst be assessed and then confronted.

A special issue of the Laylalmf Career Assessment (1993) focused on career
assessment for women. Included in this special issue were articles on issues and trends
(Betz, 1993; Hacket and Lonborg, 1993), special populations such as ethnic minority
women (Ward & Bingham, 1993), giﬂed girls and women (Kerr, 1993), women in
management (Russell & Eby, 1993), as well as others. Of note is the fact that there
was no inclusion of women with disabilities in this special issue, which was

simultaneously published as a book on the career development of women.

38

An other issue that is speciﬁc to the career development of women is test bias.
Betz (1993) focused on the problems associated with using ability and interest
inventories with women. Speciﬁcally she addressed test bias in the areas of content,
internal structure, and selection bias. In the area of content bias, Betz addressed the
fact that test revisions have been made when the results adversely affected males. For
example, the SAT eliminated exam items focusing on the humanities, human relations,
and the arts when females were found to have an advantage on the verbal portion of
thetest. Theseitemswerereplacedbyitemsﬁ'omthesciencesandbusinessareas
likelytobeneﬁtmaletesttakers. Betzalsopointsouttheeﬂ‘ectthatselectionbiashas
had on women Research studies have shown that women’s college and graduate
school performance are underpredicted by their aptitude test scores, thereby limiting
their opportunities for admission and scholarships, when their performance after
admission is actually better as indicated by higher grades.

Zunker (1994) addressed the complexities of gender bias and gender fairness in
interest testing. One of the issues Zunker addresses is which reference groups are
appropriate for norming of interest inventories. Zunker reports that some developers
of interest tests have advocated for a combined gender norm to reduce gender bias in
test interpretation, whereas others have argued for the use of separate gender norms.
Zunker encourages counselors to be cautious in their use of interest inventories with
women. Interest inventories can be used with women to expand the vocational
options considered, or with biased instruments the interpretation of results can

contribute to the narrowing of options considered and explored. One limitation of the

39

Betz and Zunker arguments is that both did not address the issues speciﬁc to either
women of color or women with disabilities.

In summary, women with disabilities have been leﬂ out of both the discussion
and studies of the impact of gender on career development. The proposed study will
examine the dual impact of being a woman and having a disability.

Irn f E ' ri S l m

Numerous authors have addressed the shortcomings of current career
development theories in their application to individuals who are members of
racial/ethnic minority groups. One of the problems in application stems ﬁom the fact
that career development theories were primarily deveIOped with Caucasian middle or
upper class males, to explain the career development of middle or upper class
Caucasian males. Career development theories often fail to predict the career behavior
of individuals who are racial/ethnic minorities (Osipow & Littlejohn, 1995). Because
the career development of racial/ethnic minorities is more complicated, more variables
need to be addressed, and any given variable will be less important in predicting career
development (Osipow & Littlejohn, 1995). Osipow and Littlejohn (1995) advocate
for the develOpment of a multicultural theory of career development that “addresses
more subtle variables of career choice and development such as the individual’s self-
concept, racial and cultural identity development and self-efficacy, as well as factors
that underlie social learning.” (p. 256)

Brown (1995) has also criticized career development theories for assuming a

free and open labor market and for ignoring various forms of discrimination such as

racial/ethnic discrimination or bias. Osipow and Littlejohn (1995) agree that career
development theories do not include barriers such as discriminatory hiring practices.
Brown characterized the existing literature as “large and disorganized” in his review of
the empirical literature on the career development of racial/ethnic minorities over the
past 20 years. Interestingly, Brown also comments that meaningful research in the
area of the career behavior of Aﬁican Americans has dramatically dropped oﬂ‘ since
the late 1970s, an observation that Danek (1992) made about research on women with
disabilities. Brown attributes this lack of research concerning the career development
of Aﬁican Americans to the need to control for factors such as skin tone, gender,
geographic region, and socioeconomic status. Obtaining samples that are large
enough to make the research meaningful is also a challenge. The complexity of this
increaseswhenwe examineallofthevaryinggroupsthatmakeup“AsianAmericans”
(Cambodians, Chines, Filipins, Indians, Japanese, Pakistanis, Thai, and Vietnamese)
each with their own culture (Sue & Abe, cited in Zunker, 1994) or “Hispanics”
(Mexican Americans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans) or “Native Americans” who represent
many native nations.

Addressing the career development of racial/ethnic minorities is paramount.
Brown (1995) indicates that the career development of Aﬁican American’s needs
“urgent attention”. As the largest racial/ethnic minority group, Aﬁican Americans
compose 12.1% of the population, however, the poverty rate for Aﬁican Americans

has remained between 30-3 6% for the past 25 years. Hispanics are fast becoming the

41

largest minority group in the United States and projections are that they will become
the largest ethnic minority group within the next 25 years (Axelson, 1993).

Addressing ethnic differences in career aspirations, interests, choices and
preferences, Brown (1995) reports that studies have indicated that Aﬁican Americans
either prefer or select social and low level-occupations and that African American
women avoid occupations where they may be faced with discrimination Betz and
Fitzgerald (1995) also attribute a lack of education to the inability of racial/ethnic
minorities to attain their vocational aspirations. This is also an issue for Native
Americans who have a very high school drop out rate.

Osipow and Littlejohn (1995) stress the importance of individual ethnic
minority groups’ history, education, social, political and economic experience in their
career development. Brown (1995) notes that within group differences are also
important to consider. For instance the issue of colorism needs to be examined. Some
studies reviewed by Brown indicated that diﬂ‘erences in educational and vocational
attainment between individuals who were light and dark skinned were sometimes as
great as diﬁ‘erences between Caucasians and Aﬁican Americans. Also of note, again,
these eﬂ‘ects were more pronounced for women.

Betz and Fitzgerald (1995) addressed the importance of the gender by ethnicity
interaction. They note studies which have shown that work expectations for African
American women are different from those of Caucasian women or women of other
ethnic minority groups such as Latinas and Asian Americans. African American

women have always been expected to work and have been encouraged towards

42

independence, self-suﬁciency, and personal strength (Collins, 1991, cited in Betz &
Fitzgerald, 1995). In contrast expectations for Latinas and Asian American women of
dependency and lack of self suﬁciency are more in line with those of Caucasian
women (Betz & Fitzgerald, 1995). Although it is more complicated, when doing
research with women from racial/etl'mic minority groups, it is important to examine the
effects of both gender and race/ethnicity.

As mentioned earlier, a few studies (Bores-Rangel, Church, Szendre, &
Reeves, 1990; Post-Kammer & Smith, 1986; Post, Stewart, & Smith, 1991) have
examined the career self-eﬁcacy of individuals from racial/ethnic minority groups.
Brown (1995) reports that while career self-eﬁcacy expectations have been implicated
in the career behavior of Aﬁican Americans, much more research is needed. As noted
by Betz and Fitzgerald (1995) this research should also include the variable of gender
and examine the gender and race/etlmic minority status interaction.

f ' ' ' n' 1 en

Currently a limited number of theories address the career development of
individuals with disabilities and there is no theory speciﬁcally addressing the career
development of women with disabilities. It is generally agreed that career
development theorists have often not included persons with disabilities. Just as
Fitzgerald and Crites (1980) describe the career development of women as more
complex than that of men, Szymanski, Hershenson, Ettinger and Enright (1996) argue
that the career development of individuals with disabilities is more complex than that

of the able bodied population.

43

Hershenson and Szymanski (1992) describe the history of vocational
rehabilitation as one of adopting theoretical approaches developed for/with the non-
disabled (usually male and white) population and applying them during counseling and
assessment to individuals with disabilities. Szymanski, et al. (1996) attribute the lack
of research on career development interventions for people with disabilities to its
complexity and the heterogeneity of the population of individuals with disabilities.

A number of authors have reviewed the vocational psychology and career
development literature and their applicability to persons with disabilities. A few others
have proposed their own models of the career development of people with disabilties.
Goldberg (1992) reviewed the vocational development literature, its applicability to
persons with disabilities and the current status of research related to the vocational
development of persons with disabilities. Goldberg reports that the many career
development theories give little attention to people with disabilities. In response to
this lack of attention, Goldberg (1992) developed the Goldberg Scale, a measure of
vocational development speciﬁcally designed for individuals with disabilities.
However, Goldberg’s theory is limited in its applicability to women with disabilities by
one of his six assumptions, “vocational development can be ordered on a continuum
in terms of maturity, irrespective of gender, race, or disability” (p. 166). The
Goldberg Scale was designed to measure speciﬁc problems individuals with disabilities
encounter. A number of ﬁndings have emerged from research utilizing the Goldberg
Scale regarding the vocational development of individuals with disabilities, including

1) the course that vocational development takes (sporadic, interrupted by

44

hospitalizations and treatments), 2) the effect of pre—disability vocational plans,
interests and work values (they have more inﬂuence than severity of disability on
vocational choice) and 3) the eﬂ’ect of parental expectations (they are most inﬂuential
during the ﬁrst 13 years of life). Goldberg used these ﬁndings and others to construct
a model of vocational development of people with disabilities. His model is helpﬁrl in
understanding the impact of disability on vocational development. Unfortunately none
of the work he and his colleagues have pursued, nor the proposed model consider
gender or race as inﬂuencing factors.

Navin and Myers (1983) proposed a model of career development for disabled
adults. In their review of the literature, Navin and Myers draw the conclusion that the
exclusion of individuals with disabilities from the vocational development literature
and the focus on placement versus career development in the federal vocational
rehabilitation system have contributed to the lack of attention to the developmental
needs of workers with disabilities. Navin and Myers present their own model of career
development which draws heavily on the work of Super. In their model self
understanding leads to self acceptance, including acceptance of disability; which in
turn leads to career exploration, career self-concept, career selection and ﬁnally career
reevaluation, which in turn aﬂ‘ects self understanding. Navin and Myers explain how
for persons with congenital onset of disability there may be the possibility of following
a “normal” career path. For individuals with adult onset disability, their planned career
path may be disrupted and they may need to revert to an earlier stage of development

“in order to reforrnulate a positive self-concept and a new self acceptance” (p. 42).

45

Navin and Myers address numerous variables, both internal and external to the
individual, which impact the career exploration process including socioeconomic
status, mental ability, personality characteristics, and available opportunities.
However, they fail to address issues of gender and race.

Career self concept develops in Navin and Myers’ (1983) model through self—
understanding and acceptance of oneselfas a worker. Their model does not address
the variable of gender and how it impacts an individual’s concept of selfas a worker.
In fact, the woman with a disability is again caught in a bind; women with disabilities
' have such low employment rates that the majority of them will not have “satisfactory
outlets for their abilities” which are required for a career self-concept. Following the
rationale of this model; no career self concept leads to no job (satisfactory outlet for
abilities) which leads to no career self concept. Navin and Myers contend that
counselors need to spend more time with clients on self-acceptance, acceptance of
disability and vocational exploration, taking a more developmental approach to career
pursuits rather than having solely a placement focus. Yet they do not address how the
variables of gender or race are interelated with self-acceptance, acceptance of
disability or vocational exploration.

One theme that has emerged in the vocational rehabilitation literature is the
importance of the time of onset of disability. Acknowledging the differences between
pre-career onset (congenital) and mid-career onset (acquired) of disability dates back
to Super (1957). Hershenson and Szymanski (1992) assert the importance of

recognizing the existence of two populations of individuals with disabilities, those with

46

congenital disabilities and those with acquired disabilities when examining career
development.

Dobren (1994) focused on the vocational rehabilitation of individuals who had
acquired midcareer disabilities. Her review of the literature concluded that neither the
vocational development literature nor the rehabilitation literature do an adequate job of
addressing the issues of individuals who are disabled midcareer. Dobren addresses
many of the parallels in the ﬁelds of vocational devel0pment and vocational
rehabilitation including a move away ﬁom studying intraindividual diﬂ‘erences to a
focus on ecological systems approaches. Drawing ﬁom the ﬁelds of vocational
development and vocational rehabilitation, she builds an “ecologically oriented
conceptual model of vocational rehabilitation of people with acquired midcareer
disabilities”(p. 221). While her model includes numerous person variables (social
skills, self-concept, education, work history, job skills, intelligence, aptitudes, values,
interests, motivation, health, and outlook) and how these variables are impacted by a
variety of physical, economic, social and rehabilitation systems variables aﬁer disability
onset; there is no mention of gender or race. A strength of this model is that it
incorporates individual and contextual factors when examining midcareer disability
onset.

In general, work in the area of vocational development of individuals with
disabilities has failed to pay adequate attention to the impacts of gender, race and their

interaction with time of onset of disability on career development. The proposed study

47

will examine the impact of the time of onset of disability on career self-efﬁcacy in
conjunction with gender and racila/ethnic minority status.
Successful Career Deyelgpmgnt of Women with Disabilities

A few studies in the rehabilitation literature have examined the impact of
gender and have addressed the successful or non-traditional career development of
women with disabilities (DeLoach, 1989; Hayslip, 1981, cited in Slappo & Katz
(1989); Johnson, 1983, cited in Slappo & Katz (1989); Slappo & Katz, 1989).
DeLoach (1989), studying a sample of 501 college alumni with disabilities, found that
gender was a major factor in both career choice and occupational outcomes. DeLoach
concluded ﬁ'om her study that gender has a more signiﬁcant impact on career choice
and career development than do the physical or sensory disabilities of college students.
Once enrolled in college the women in this study chose traditionally female majors and
subsequently found employment in traditionally female occupations. Signiﬁcantly
more women than men with disabilities were employed part-time, women were earning
lower wages than men, and women were in the majority in the helping professions and
many women held the position of clerk/secretary. Women participants in this study
differed signiﬁcantly from the typical woman with a disability in that 94% were
employed and 53% had salaries between $20,000 and $40,000.

In their study of 449 women with disabilities in nontraditional careers from
across the United States, Slappo and Katz (1989) found the majority of the women
had obtained their current position after the onset of their disability, were currently

employed, and were in professional occupations. Sixty-six percent of the women gave

48

the nature of the position as their reason for choosing a nontraditional career, and
mentioned their mothers as being inﬂuential in their career choice. Thirty-ﬁve percent
of the women had role models and usually the role model did not have a disability.
Dedication to the job and mentors were reported as contributing most to career
success. Work experience was seen as most inﬂuential in helping to overcome career
problems. Education and assistance ﬁ'om others also contributed to overcoming
career problems, however the importance of these factors varied by disability type.
Re ili ' n

Jenkins, Ayers, and Hunt (1996) provide a historical perspective of the
development of multicultural awareness in the profession of rehabilitation counseling.
Over the past thirty years there has been a growing awareness of the particular nwds
and issues faced by racial/ethnic minorities in rehabilitation systems, primarily the
public rehabilitation program.

The authors note that a great deal of controversy was generated in 1980 by the
Atkins and Wright study which compared the treatment of caucasians and ethnic/racial
minorities in the public rehabilitation system. Using percentage rates, Atkins and
Wright (1980) found that ethnic/racial minorities were accepted at lower rates, had
higher percentages of unsuccessful closures, and when successfully closed
(ie., employed) their weekly wages were lower. Others re-analyzed the results
obtained by Atkins and Wright and came to diﬂ‘ering conclusions (Bolton & Cooper,
1980). Most recently Wheaton (1995) in a replication of the Atkins and Wright study

examined the acceptance rates of European Americans and African Americans using a

49

chi-square test of homogeneity of proportions. Using this methodology he found no
signiﬁcant diﬂ‘erences in acceptance rates of African Americans and European
Americans for a single midwestem state in Fiscal Year 1992. However it is important
to note that this study examined only acceptance rates of these groups, not what
services are provided during service provision or outcome results such as successful
closure rates, job placement rates, and earnings at time of closure. Another limitation
of this study was that it was conﬁned to only one state. There do not appear to be any
clear conclusions that can be drawn from the studies on acceptance rates of diﬂ‘ering
racial/ethnic groups.

Much of the literature over the past thirty years has focused on the need for
multicultural awareness on the part of rehabilitation counselors providing services to
ethnic/racial minorities (e.g., Alston & Mngadi, 1992; Atkins, 1988; Feist-Price &
Ford-Harris, 1994; Feist-Price & Harley, 1996; Herbert & Cheatham, 1988; Sheppard,
Bunton, Menifee, & Rocha, 1995; Watson, 1988; Watson, 1990; Wright, 1988 ).
Jenkins, Ayers and Hunt (1996) refer to the ...”eﬂ‘orts made by professional
associations to repave the road for increased sensitivity, understanding and active
participation to make rehabilitation more inclusive of diverse groups” (p.83). What is
evident ﬁ'om the literature is the paucity of empirical studies which address the needs
of ethnic/racial minorities and the provision of rehabilitation services.

One such study was conducted by Sheppard, Bunton, Menifee and Rocha
(1995). Using consumer focus groups of individuals ﬁom a variety of ethnic/racial

minority groups they examined the consumers’ perceptions of services provided and

50

service providers in the rehabilitation system as well as related service systems.
Findings included perceptions of rehabilitation providers towards consumers, needed
skills and information, and the importance of counselors having similar disability
experiences as the consumer. Participants noted that having counselors of the same
ethnic/racial group assisted in the establishment of trust, however similar disability had
a higher priority than similarities based on race, gender, or ethnic background. A
major limitation of this study, which the authors do not address, is the lack of female
participants in the study. A full 87% of the participants in this study were male. This
study is illustrative of the studies in rehabilitation which address multicultural issues
and then proceed to deﬁne the needs and issues of ethnic/racial minorities based on a
male sample, or a sample that does not address the relationship between race and
gender.

Another example of this lack of attention to gender in the multicultural
rehabilitation literature is an article by Watson (1990) which addresses Aﬁican
Americans and alcohol abuse. The article points out a number of considerations
necessary when working with Aﬁican Americans who abuse alcohol, in addition,
culturally sensitive alcohol interventions are addressed. The issue of gender is
addressed in the last line of the article where subgroups of Aﬁican Americans are
addressed, this is the ﬁrst mention of Aﬁ'ican American women alcoholics in the
article.

In summary, this review of the literature has shown the dearth of studies on

women with disabilities and speciﬁcally the career development of women with

51

disabilities. A great deal of literature was generated in the early 19805 which identiﬁed
issues and problems particular to women with disabilities. However, the research all
but stopped with problem identiﬁcation. The last ten years have only generated a
“trickle” of studies (Danek, 1992). Awareness of multicultural issues in the
rehabilitation literature has grown over the past thirty years, however, much of the
work done in this area has stopped at the increased awareness and sensitivity level. In
terms of ethnic/racial minority career development, while there is no shortage of work
addressing the shortcomings of current theories there have been few attempts to
incorporate ethnic/racial minority issues into current theory or towards the
development of a more inclusive theory. Career self-eﬁcacy theory has been
identiﬁed by authors in the areas of rehabilitation counseling, multicultural career
development, and the career development of women as having promise when
examining the complex career development of these groups.

This literature review has identiﬁed the need to incorporate gender issues,
multicultural issues, disability issues and career development issues. Studies of this
nature are required to ﬁrrther our knowledge of individuals with disabilities, women
with disabilities, and more speciﬁcally racial and ethnic minority women with
disabilities. This study was informed by the knowledge that has been generated in the
areas of career self-emcacy, the impact of gender on career development, the impact
of racial/ethnic minority status on career development and the impact of disability on

career development. As the ﬁrst study that addresses the combined variables of

52

gender, racial/ethnic minority status, and disability it fulﬁlls a need that has been

repeatedly expressed.

Chapter III
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to provide a foundation of knowledge on the
career self-eﬁcacy of women and men with disabilities. This was accomplished
through the measurement of career self-eﬁicacy both at the occupational and task
speciﬁc levels. The research questions were as follows: 1) do women with disabilities
have lower self—emcacy ratings than men with disabilities for occupational tasks,
occupations, or traditional versus non-traditional occupations, 2) do career self-
eﬁcacy measures diﬂ‘er according to time of onset of disability, and 3) are career self-
eﬂicacy measures lower for individuals who are racial/ethnic minorities. This chapter
outlines the subjects, setting, instrumentation, procedure and data analysis that were
employed in this study. I
m
Desgiptign of the Sample
Individuals with disabilities who attended an orientation-to-services meeting or
who had recently applied for services with Michigan Jobs Commission, Michigan
Rehabilitation Services (MJC, MRS) were included as the subjects in this study.
Individuals who apply for services have a disability which affects their ability to obtain
and maintain employment. With thirty-ﬁve ﬁeld ofﬁces across the state, MJC, MRS is

the state/federal rehabilitation program in Michigan. Michigan Jobs Commission,

53

g):

54

Michigan Rehabilitation Services is a publicly ﬁrnded agency that serves individuals
with disabilities. Through MJC, MRS, individuals with all types of disabilities

(e. g., physical, cognitive, emotional, or developmental) apply for services and their
eligibility for services is determined (see Appendix A). A variety of services designed
to assist individuals with obtaining and maintaining employment are provided, such as
career counseling, transportation assistance, adaptive equipment, vocational
evaluation, and job placement.

The thirty-ﬁve MJC, MRS oﬁces, are divided into four geographic “areas”
(Eastern, Northwestern, Southern and Wayne). The Eastern Area includes ten oﬂices
located in Flint, Saginaw, Caro, Bay City, Port Huron, Clinton Valley, Pontiac, South
Oakland, Mt. Clemens and Warren. The Northwestern Area includes nine omces in
the Muskegon, Holland, Alpena, Gaylord, Grand Rapids, Marquette, Traverse City,
Mt. Pleasant, and Big Rapids area. The Southern Area, consisting of eight oﬁices,
includes ofﬁces in Adrian, Jackson, Lansing, Kalamazoo, Benton Harbor, Battle
Creek, Ann Arbor and Monroe. The Wayne Area includes the Special Projects Oﬂice,
Detroit Schools Oﬁce, Detroit Eastern, Detroit Central, Detroit Southwest, Western
Wayne, Wyandotte and Redford ofﬁces for a total of eight ofﬁces (see Appendix B).

In order to determine whether there were signiﬁcant differences between these
geographic areas, data were obtained from the central oﬂice of MJC, MRS on the
clients served during the 1993 ﬁscal year. These data include the number of clients
served, referral source, major disability, age, marital status, sex, race, primary source

of support, highest grade completed, type of public assistance received, total earnings,

55

amount of public assistance received, weekly earnings and other closure information
for clients by district oﬁice. These data were examined for variations in numbers of
clients served, gender composition of the clients, disability characteristics and racial
composition. It was determined that clients served by the oﬂices within the four areas
were relatively similar to one another. However, the Wayne Area served more racial
minority clients than did the other areas. A summary of these data is presented in
Appendix C.

In the 1993 ﬁscal year, 14,243 individuals were served by the thirty-ﬁve ofﬁces
in these four areas. Roughly 29% (4,203) were served by the Eastern Area, 24%
(3,460) by the Northwestern Area, 20% (2,913) by the Southern Area and 26%
(3,644) by the Wayne Area During 1993, 8,480 males (59.6%) and 5,763 females
(40.5%) were served by Michigan Rehabilitation Services. The racial/ethnic
composition of those served was 76.3% White, 22.6% Black, 2.6% Hispanic, 0.6%
Native Americans and 0.5% Asian. The Eastern Area was composed of 60. 1% male
and 87.4% White; the Northwestern Area was composed of 57.3% male and 89.7%
White; the Southern Area was composed of 57.5% male and 84.6% White; and the
Wayne Area was composed of 62.7% male and 44.2% White.

Each oﬂice provides an orientation of services to clients either individually or
in groups. Individual orientations typically consist of an applicant meeting with
support staﬁ a counselor, or services supervisor, to review her/his application for
services and receive general information about the agency. Group orientations can

consist of a combination of the following: applicants receiving and/or completing an

56

application for services, receiving general information about the agency, viewing a
videotape about the agency, and having an opportunity to ask questions regarding
services. While the original plan for this study was to collect data only at group
orientations, this plan was modiﬁed to include individual orientations to attain greater
geographic representation.

For this study, a modiﬁed stratiﬁed cluster sampling technique was planned.
In stratiﬁed sampling, the population of interest is divided into non-overlapping
subdivisions, called strata, on the basis of one or more classiﬁcation variables
(Pedhazur, Pedhazur-Schmelkin, 1991). With cluster sampling, clusters are developed
with elements that are physically close together and tend to have similar characteristics
(Scheaﬂ‘er, Mendenhall, & Ott, 1990). In this study, areas were used as stratum to
provide representativeness of individuals in all four geographic areas of the state.
Here the cluster was the group of individuals who attended a group orientation
meeting at a speciﬁc oﬂice in an area, or the group of individuals who came in to an
oﬂice over the course of a day for individual orientations. Originally it was planned
that the minimum cluster size would be ten individuals, however, due to the lack of a
group orientation at some oﬂices and the low number of intakes per day, it was not
possible to obtain ten individuals from each oﬂice where data collection took place.

The sampling frame was inﬂuenced by the practical consideration that not all
ofﬁces provide group orientations. While the original plan was that oﬁces of
Michigan Jobs Commission, Michigan Rehabilitation Services would be randomly

chosen from the omces that currently had a group orientation process, this plan

57

needed to be modiﬁed. A meeting was held with the senior management team of the
Michigan Jobs Commission, Michigan Rehabilitation Services where the proposed
study was discussed and a summary of the study was presented (see Appendix D).
Each area of the state is represented on the senior management team by either an area
director or a district manager. The area managers reported which oﬂices currently
held group orientations and made suggestions regarding which omces to contact. At
this meeting the senior managers requested that a question be added to the instruments
that asked applicants if they would be willing to share the results of their instruments
with their counselor. It was agreed that such a question would be added to the
instuments. This item was added to the last page of the instrument package so
individuals could make this decision after having completed the instruments.

The senior managers asked that a few oﬁces be excluded from the study due
to administrative issues such as recent personnel changes or participation in other
research studies. The district managers in each of the four areas were then contacted
either by phone and/or fax The phone contact or fax contact described the study and
included a request to have their ofﬁce participate in the study (see Appendix E).
Fifteen oﬂices were contacted, of these thirteen participated in the study. While the
other two ofﬁces agreed to participate, scheduling difﬁculties prohibited their
participation. Phone contacts with the oﬂices included a brief description of the study
and any questions regarding the study were answered. A contact person was
established and a time to attend an upcoming group orientation-to-services or intake

day was scheduled. The original plan was that a minimum of two ofﬁces, that provide

58

a group orientation, from each of the four areas (strata) would be randomly selected to
be included in the study, for a minimum total of eight ofﬁces used as sites for data
collection. The ﬁnal number of data collection sites was thirteen omces with each of
the four areas represented. In order to attain more equal cell sizes in the study and to
be able to make comparisons between groups by gender, racial/ethnic minority status,
and onset of disability, oversampling of both women with disabilities and also
minorities with disabilities took place in areas with a higher percentage of these
populations.

Instnnncntatian

Research instruments were required in this study to measure the career self-
eﬂicacy of individuals with disabilities. In order to explore the full range of options
regarding instrumentation, an extensive search for appropriate measures was
undertaken. This search began with a computer search and then a manual search of
the past ten years of the commonly used journals in the ﬁelds of counseling psychology
and rehabilitation counseling (e. g., Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling,
Journal of Rehpbilitptjpp, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletm' Journal of Vpcational
Be_h_avior. Journg of Cgeer Assessment).

The literature search resulted in a number of articles where a variety of
instruments had been used to measure occupational self-eﬁcacy. A number of the
authors of these articles were contacted either by phone or letter and requests for
copies of the instruments were made. Telephone interviews were also made with a

number of the authors regarding their thoughts about the best ways to measure career

59

self-efﬁcacy and which factors accounted for differences in scores. Additionally a
number of dissertations were reviewed to examine which instruments were used to
measure career self-efﬁcacy. The decision to use the Occupational Self-emcacy Scale,
Form B (OSES) was made after reviewing the instruments received. The OSES has
been used extensively both in published and unpublished research (e. g., Layton, 1984;
Williams, 1993; Zilber, 1988).

One concern of using the OSES with the population in this study was
restriction of range. The possibility existed that the sample would be homogenous
enough in their lack of prior work experience and in their lack of career self-eﬁcacy to
cause restriction of range. A projected limitation was that all of the scores for each of
the subjects may be too low to detect measurable or signiﬁcant diﬂ‘erences between
subjects.

Thus, the decision was made to look for an additional instrument that might .
tease out further differences in career selfveﬁcacy. At one point, developing an
instrument with a variety of tasks and behaviors relating to job performance and job
seeking was considered. However, a decision was made to use existing instruments
that had been used extensively with other populations. The career decision making
self-efﬁcacy scale (CDMSES) (Taylor & Betz, 1983) was considered, however, its
emphasis on behaviors and skills appropriate for individuals who are currently enrolled
in a university or college made it a poor ﬁt for this population Numerous other

published and unpublished instruments were examined but also found inappropriate.

60

A more speciﬁc measure of career self-efﬁcacy was sought. The Task Speciﬁc
Self-efﬁcacy Scale (TSOSS) (Osipow & Rooney, 1989) was found. Osipow and his
colleagues have measured career self-eﬁcacy at the task level (Osipow & Rooney,
1989; Rooney, 1991; Rooney & Osipow, 1992; Osipow, Temple & Rooney, 1993;
Temple & Osipow, 1994). The recemly developed Short Form of the T8088
(Osipow, Temple & Rooney, 1993) was used to determine levels of career self-
eﬁicacy at the task level. By having a measure of career self-eﬂicacy at both the
occupational title level and the task level, the problem of restriction of range was
avoided. Both of these measures contributed to the overall knowledge of career self-
eﬁcacy of individuals with disabilities. The occupational level provided knowledge
about general occupational self-eﬁcacy, which is instrumental in the goal setting and
career choice process, and the task level provided knowledge about speciﬁc task self-
emcacy. Williams and Betz (1994) address the importance of measuring career self-
caicacy at both the occupational and task-speciﬁc level. They found that while
occupational self-eﬁcacy and task speciﬁc self-efﬁcacy are related, they are not
redundant.

Resulting ﬁ'om this extensive search and thought process was the decision to
measure career self-efﬁcacy at both the occupational and task level using two already
developed measures, the Occupational Self-Efﬁcacy Scale, Form B, (Betz and
Hackett, 1981) and the Short Form of the Task Speciﬁc Occupational Self-Efﬁcacy

Scale (Osipow, Temple & Rooney, 1993).

61

ati n lf-Efﬁ S ale

Occupational self-efﬁcacy was measured using the Occupational Self-Efﬁcacy
Scale (OSES) developed by Betz and Hackett (1981). The OSES was the ﬁrst
instrument designed to measure career self-eﬁcacy. Currently there are two forms of
the OSES, Format A and Format B. Both forms consist of 20 well known
occupational titles which represent a variety of interest areas. The 20 occupations
listed were selected on the basis of their being traditionally female occupations (70%
or more of those individuals employed in the occupation are women) or
nontraditionally female occupations (70% or more of those individuals employed in the
occupation are men). The OSES contains two measures of career self-eﬁcacy, one
assessing self-emcacy with regard to the educational prerequisites of career entry, and
another assessing self-eﬁicacy with regard to the occupational job duties. Participants
are requested to respond to each of the 20 occupational titles on the basis of their
perceived degree of competence regarding the successﬁrl performance of both the
educational and career duty requirements using a 10 point scale. Format A of the
Educational Self-Efﬁcacy Response ﬁrst asks the respondent whether or not they feel
they could successﬁrlly complete the education and/or training required to enter each
of the occupations. Then the individual responds with their level of conﬁdence, which
ranges from 1 (Completely unsure) to 10 (Completely sure). Format B includes only
the conﬁdence ratings (0-9). Format A of the Job Duties Self-Efﬁcacy Response ﬁrst

asks the respondent whether or not they could successfully complete the

62

required education and/or training for an occupation and then to indicate their level of
conﬁdence to successﬁrlly perform the job duties of that occupation if they had the
necessary education and/or training. The individual responds with their level of
conﬁdence, which ranges from 1 (Completely Unsure) to 10 (Completely Sure).

Format B includes only the conﬁdence ratings (0-9). Betz and Hackett (1993)
found both formats to be acceptable for measuring occupational self-eﬂicacy. They
note, however, that the second format has the advantage of requiring only one versus
two scores. In Format B a response of “No conﬁdence at all” (0) is assumed to be
equivalent to a “No” response to the “yes/no” section on Format A 'For this study
Format B was used, as it appeared to be more understandable for the respondent.

General Career Self-Efﬁcacy Scores range ﬁ'om 0-360. Self-eﬁcacy scores
are the sum of the conﬁdence ratings across the desired subscale items (educational
' requirements versus job duties, traditional occupations versus non-traditional
occupations). Total scores for the educational requirements and job duties across all
twenty occupations were calculated as a simple sum (Betz & Hackett, 1993). A copy
of the Occupational Self-Eﬂicacy Scales Format B is provided in Appendix F.

Internal consistency of the total score of the OSES has been reported to range
from .94 (Zilber, 1988) to .95 (Layton, 1984) with a population of female
undergraduate students in an introductory psychology course. The internal
consistency for the sum for traditionally female-occupations across educational
requirements and job duties has ranged from .91 (Layton, 1984) to .92 (Zilber, 1988).

The internal consistency for the sum for male dominated occupations across

63

educational requirements and job duties has ranged from .89 (Zilber, 1988) to .92
(Layton, 1984).

Test-retest reliability for the overall OSES level and strength scores are
reported as .55 and .70 over a one-week retest period (Betz & Hackett, 1993).

Content, concurrent and construct validity of the OSES have all been examined (Betz

& Hackett, 1993 ).
Ipsk-Spggiﬁp pectippg'onal self-Emcm scale

Task speciﬁc occupational self-eﬁcacy was measured using the Short Form of
the TSOSS (Osipow, Temple & Rooney, 1993). The TSOSS was developed to
provide a detailed measure of occupational self-efﬁcacy at the task level. Items for the
TSOSS were obtained ﬁpm Part A of Selected Characteristics of Occupations Deﬁned
in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. In the long form, the 230 skill and
knowledge items represent speciﬁc tasks required to accomplish the occupations in the
work groups, as designated by the US. Employment Services. The Short Form of the
TSOSS is the result of a factor analysis of the responses of 1265 subjects. The factor
analysis resulted in a 60 item short form with four, ﬁfteen-item subscales representing
four distinct, non-overlapping factors. The four factors are 1) language and
interpersonal skills; 2) quantitative, logical, scientiﬁc, and business skills; 3) physical
strength and agility; and 4) aesthetic skills. Respondents are asked to indicate the level
of conﬁdence they have in their ability to perform each of sixty activities. Level of

conﬁdence ranges from A (No conﬁdence) to E (Absolute certainty).

63

educational requirements and job duties has ranged from .89 (Zilber, 1988) to .92
(Layton, 1984).

Test-retest reliability for the overall OSES level and strength scores are
reported as .55 and .70 over a one-week retest period (Betz & Hackett, 1993).
Content, concurrent and construct validity of the OSES have all been examined (Betz
& Hackett, 1993).

k— * ' ti Self-E cal

Task speciﬁc occupational self-efﬁcacy was measured using the Short Form of
the TSOSS (Osipow, Temple & Rooney, 1993). The TSOSS was developed to
provide a detailed measure of occupational self-eﬂicacy at the task level. Items for the
TSOSS were obtained from Part A of Selected Characteristics of Occupations Deﬁned
in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. In the long form, the 230 skill and
knowledge items represent speciﬁc tasks required to accomplish the occupations in the
work groups, as designated by the US. Employment Services. The Short Form of the
TSOSS is the result of a factor analysis of the responses of 1265 subjects. The factor
analysis resulted in a 60 item short form with four, ﬁfteen-item subscales representing
four distinct, non—overlapping factors. The four factors are 1) language and
interpersonal skills; 2) quantitative, logical, scientiﬁc, and business skills; 3) physical
strength and agility; and 4) aesthetic skills. Respondents are asked to indicate the level
of conﬁdence they have in their ability to perform each of sixty activities. Level of

conﬁdence ranges ﬁom A (No conﬁdence) to E (Absolute certainty).

65

of onset of disability, prior MJC, MRS client or received counseling services, and
services sought. The demographic survey is provided in Appendix H.
Field Teging ef the Instrumente

During March of 1995, each of the instruments that were used in this study
were ﬁeld tested. The Ann Arbor District Ofﬁce of MJC, MRS was contacted and
permission was obtained to administer the demographic information survey, the
TSOSS and the OSES to a group of applicants for service at an orientation meeting.
The purpose of this administration was to obtain feedback from individuals regarding
readability, clarity and face validity of the instruments. Procedurally, an
orientation-for-services meeting was attended. At the conclusion of the orientation,
attendees were asked to volunteer to assist with the ﬁne tuning of the instruments.
Individuals were offered ten dollars for their time and effort. Ten of the thirteen
individuals who attended the orientation meeting stayed to assist. The individuals who
agreed to participate were told that the information they provided would not be used
or reported in any way as data. It was explained that their completion of the
instruments was strictly to provide fwdback on the instruments. The instruments were
completed in 28 minutes by all of the individuals. Upon completion of the
instnrments, the individuals were asked a series of questions regarding the length,
readability and clarity of the instruments. Individuals were also asked if they would
have assisted the author without the ten dollar incentive to do so. Individuals
representing a variety of disabilities including cognitive, physical and psychiatric

participated. Much useﬁrl information was gained from the ﬁeld test. Individuals

66

found all of the instruments to be readable and clear. They commented that the
instnrments were not too long and while they would have participated without the
ﬁnancial incentive they appreciated receiving some remuneration. It was also noted
that the draft of the demographic survey contained no information on race/ethnicity.
This item was added to the ﬁnal draﬂ.

We
Design

The intent of this study was to assess the career self-eﬂicacy of individuals with
disabilities by analyzing the responses of applicants for services to the 40 item OSES
and 60 item TSOSS.

A proposal letter was sent to the director of Michigan Jobs Commission,
Michigan Rehabilitation Services. Upon invitation, a presentation was then made to
the senior management team of MJC, MRS. At this meeting, the district managers
provided information regarding which oﬁces held group orientation meetings. They
also asked that some ofﬁces not be contacted due to personnel issues or due to
participation in other research studies. Faxes were sent and phone calls were made to
15 district managers. Data collection took place at 13 ofﬁces. Data collection that
coincided with a group orientation was scheduled at eight ofﬁces. Individual intake
days were scheduled at ﬁve oﬁices. A total of 36 site visits for data collection were

made to obtain the needed 200 participants.

67

Dete Qelleetiep

On the days of the data collection at each of the oﬁices where a group
orientation was held, the group orientation-to-services meetings were attended. An
introduction to the study was provided to applicants for services either before or aﬂer
the orientation. Applicants were given the opportunity to voluntarily participate in this
study. Applicants were asked to sign an Informed Consent form (see Appendix I)
before completing the TSOSS and OSES.

Participants were asked to respond to the instrument. package in the order
presented. As mentioned earlier, Williams (1993) found an order eﬂ‘ect on scores.
Speciﬁcally he found that stronger self-eﬁcacy was generated by both genders in the
OSES ﬁrst condition. It was hypothesized that the administration of the TSOSS ﬁrst
served as a reality check. Because this study was not focused on order eﬂ‘ects, the
ordering eﬂ‘ect was controlled for by having all individuals-complete the OSES ﬁrst.

Participants were given the following instructions: 1) complete each
questionnaire in the order presented, 2) answer the questions with your initial
reaction, do not spend a great deal of time thinking about any one item, 3) complete
all items to the best of your ability, 4) do not go back and change any item after
having completed it. After responding to the survey instruments, subjects were
asked about their willingness to participate in a follow up study. If they agreed to
participate their name, and phone number was documented (see Appendix J ).

I was available during the data collection process to answer any questions

related to completion of the instruments. The only questions asked related to the

68

meaning of speciﬁc words (e.g., what is a home economist) and those related to
completion of speciﬁc items (e. g., what do you mean by total years paid work history).
Finally, participants were asked if they were willing to share the results of the
instruments with their counselor (see Appendix J). Ifthey agreed the results were sent
(see Appendix K). The information reported back to the counselors included total
score on the OSES and TSOSS, as well as factor scores and subscale scores. A brief
deﬁnition of career self-efﬁcacy was provided and a caution was included that the
instruments had not been normed with individuals with disabilities and thus the results
should be considered with caution. Also the fact that this was the ﬁrst study
employing these instruments with individuals with disabilities was mentioned.

After completion of the instruments, participants were thanked for their
participation in this study, were asked if they had any questions, and were paid ten
dollars each for their participation. One individual refused remuneration. The
instruments were checked for completeness before the individual left. Ifany items:
were left blank, the individual was asked to complete those items.

Individual data collection was very similar to data collection at group
orientations. Because a number of ofﬁces no longer had group orientations, days were
scheduled to visit oﬂices for data collection as individuals came in for individual
intakes. For example, the Detroit Eastern ofﬁce does not have group orientations, but
a counselor is assigned intake duty on a daily basis. As individuals come in to apply
for services they are given an orientation to services, are shown a video, and are given

an application to complete. A follow up appointment is then scheduled. Completion

69

of the instruments for this study was done in conjunction with this process.
Individuals were given an orientation to the study, were asked to complete the
instruments and were provided with the same information as individuals who had
attended a group orientation.

After data collection at each of the sites the instruments were reviewed for any
irregularities in instrument completion. This information was coded for data entry and
analyzed using the statistical package SPSS-PC. Data for this study collected

from July, 1996, tW6~
. \\\

fDécriptive statistics were computed on sample characteristicsme
demographics collected on the demographic survey. Speciﬁc demographics included

’ the following continuous variables; age, and years of work experience. Speciﬁc

  
  
  
   
 

demographics included the following categorical variables: gender, race, disability,

marital status. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for these variables. F
/ each of the continuous variables group means and standard deviations were com ted

/ and displayed for the entire sample and for the sub-sample groups (e.g., wo ii, men,

I

\

Aﬁican American, Caucasian, congenital onset, adult onset).

   
   

As described by Betz and Hackett (1993) the Occupa ' a1 Self-efﬁcacy Score

was calculated by summing the conﬁdenWoss the desired subscale items

/'
/'

,e/r” . . . .
sus job duties, traditional occupations versus non-

traditional occupations). Total scores for the educational requirements and job duties

70

across all twenty occupations were calculated as a simple sum (Betz & Hackett,
1993).

The TSOSS score was calculated by summing the raw scores for each of the
four factors. A score for Factor 1, (Verbal) was calculated by summing the raw score
of every fourth item beginning with item #1. A score for Factor 2, (Quantitative),
was calculated by summing the raw score of every fourth item beginning with #2. A
score for Factor 3, (Physical), was calculated by summing the raw score for every
fourth item beginning with #3. A score for Factor 4, (Aesthetic), was calculated by
summing the raw score for every fourth item beginning with #4. A total TSOSS score‘
was calculated by summing the four subtotals for each of the factors (1-4).

To address the research questions, two 2x2x2 multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) were run. The ﬁrst MAN OVA used the independent variables of gender,
with two levels (malgi‘emale), disability onset, with two levels (conge%rtal, adult
onset), and race with two levje/ls (Caucasian, Aﬁican American) and the four factor
scores on the TSOSS as dependent variables. This resulted in eight groups that could
be compared (African American women with congenital onset, Caucasian women with
congenital onset, Aﬁican American women with adult onset, Caucasian women with
adult onset, African American men with congenital onset, Caucasian men with
congenital onset, Aﬁican American men with adult onset and Caucasian men with
adult onset) on the four factor scores. The second MAN OVA included the
independent variables of gender, race and disability onset with the Traditional Male

and Traditional Female subscale scores of the OSES as the dependent variables. As

71

noted above total scores can be calculated as can separate scores on the traditional
versus non-traditional occupations on the OSES and the four factors of the TSOSS.
Main eﬂ‘ects for gender, race and onset of disability were examined.

According to Hair, Anderson, Tatharn (1987), MANOVA is “an extension of
analysis of variance (AN OVA) to accommodate more than one criterion variable. It is
a dependence technique that measures the differences for two or more metric variables
based on a set of categorical predictor variables”(p. 153). A statistical advantage in
using MANOVA is the ability to maintain control over the experiment—wide error rate.
By using MANOVA versus a series of separate univariate ANOVAs, experiment wide
error rate can be better controlled (Hair, Anderson & Tatham, 1987). A conceptual
advantage to using MAN OVA is its ability to provide a single method of testing a
number of multivariate questions (Hair, Anderson, & Tatham, 1987). Hand and
Taylor (cited in Hair, Anderson, & Tatham, 1987) classiﬁed multivariate problems into
a few categories. One of these categories is multiple univariate questions where
MANOVA is used to assess whether an overall diﬂ‘erence is found between groups
and then separate univariate tests are used.

This study employed multiple univariate questions since a number of separate
dependent variables (occupational self-efﬁcacy and task speciﬁc self-eﬂicacy) were
analyzed separately and control over experiment-wide error needed to be maintained.
A second category of questions is intrinsically multivariate questions which involve a
set of dependent measures in which the principal concern is how they differ as a whole

across the groups (Hair, Anderson & Tatham, 1987). According to Hair et al. (1987)

72

the full power of MANOVA is utilized in this case, assessing not only the overall
diﬂ’erences but also the diﬂ‘erences among combinations of dependent measures that
would not otherwise be apparent. This study employed intrinsically multivariate
questions because the main concern was an overall measure of career self-efﬁcacy on
the OSES and TSOSS subscales and factor scores and not individual scores on each
item. It was also expected that the scores on the OSES and TSOSS should be
consistent and this was tested.

Finally, the .05 level of signiﬁcance was used as the minimum rejection level of

all statistical analyses.

Chapter IV
RESULTS
a ri ' f th 1

The sample in this study consisted of 199 individuals who attended group or
individual orientation-to—services meetings at Michigan Jobs Commission, Michigan
Rehabilitation Services. Two hundred and nine individuals were asked to participate
in the study, of these, 206 agreed, for a participation rate of 98.6%. The 206
completed surveys yielded 199 useable surveys. The information from these 199
individuals was gathered ﬁom a total of 36 visits to 13 Michigan Rehabilitation
Services oﬂices, over a period of four months (July-October 1996).

All four areas of the state, as deﬁned by Michigan Rehabilitation Services, are
represented in the ﬁnal sample. Table 1 presents a breakdown of the participants by
Michigan Rehabilitation Services ofﬁce and area. The Northwestern area is primarily
rural covering much of the northern and western parts of the lower peninsula and the
entire upper peninsula of Michigan. This area is primarily Caucasian, with the highest
percentage of racial/ethnic minorities in the cities of Muskegon and Grand Rapids.
The Wayne area includes oﬁces in Detroit and two ofﬁces in the Detroit suburbs
(Western Wayne and Redford). Detroit is a large city known for its automotive

industry. Detroit has a large population of Aﬁican Americans. The Southern area

73

74

Table 1

Respondents Categorized by Oﬁce and Area (n=l 99)

 

 

Area/Ofﬁce Frequency Percent
Eastern Area (n=41)
Flint 17 8. 5
North Macomb 11 6.0
North Oakland 11 5.0
South Oakland 2 1.5

Northwest Area (n=13)
Grand Rapids 13 6.5

Southern Area (n=80)

Benton Harbor 9 4.5
Jackson 16 8.0
Kalamazoo 16 8.0
Lansing 39 20.0
Wayne Area (n=65)
Detroit Central 6 3.0
Detroit Eastern 28 14.0
Detroit Southwest 21 l 1.0
Redford ,1_Q_ _§._Q

Totals 199 100.0%

75

includes offices ﬁ'om Benton Harbor to Monroe, covering the southern part of the
state. This area includes rural farming areas, a university town (Ann Arbor) and the
state Capitol (Lansing). The highest concentration of racial/ethnic minorities are in the
Lansing and Ann Arbor areas. Finally, the Eastern area includes ofﬁces in the thumb
area of Michigan. This area includes some rural areas, cities, and some Detroit
suburbs. The cities of Flint, Pontiac, and Saginaw have the largest racial/ethnic
minority populations in this area.

In the present sample there is over-representation of the Southern and Wayne
areas and under-representation of the Northwestern and Eastern areas. Oversarnpling
was done in the Southern and Wayne areas to obtain adequate numbers of racial
minorities. In addition, the study is highly randomized in terms of the individuals who
participated in the study and the results are generalizable to the larger population of
individuals who will be served by similar state agencies. '

In the demographic survey which accompanied the Occupational Self-Efﬁcacy
Scale (Form B) and the Task Speciﬁc Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (Short Form)
respondents identiﬁed their gender, age, race/ethnicity, marital status, highest level of
education attained, total years of paid work history, work history, whether or not they
had ever received services from Michigan Rehabilitation Services, what types of
services they were seeking, whether or not they had ever received any counseling or

help with ﬁnding a job ﬁ'om another person or agency, type of most severe disability

76

that impedes their ability to work, onset of disability, and years since onset of
disability. The ﬁnal sample contained 99 females (49.7%) and 100 males (50.3%). The
racial/ethnic composition of the ﬁnal sample was 101 Caucasians (50.8%), 91 Aﬁican
Americans (45.8%), 1 Native American (0.5%), 1 Hispanic (0.5%), 1 individual from
India (0.5%), and four individuals (2%) who identiﬁed themselves as being bi-cultural.
Due to the limited number of individuals who were members of racial/ethnic minority
groups who were not Aﬁican American, a decision was made to perform the majority
of the analyses on the Caucasian and African American participants and omit the
others.

A breakdown of respondents b WWW is presented

in Table 2. Table 3 presents the respondents by race and onset of disability. There

r"\
were more males (n=30) in the study who had congenital onset disabilities than

 

females (n=25). Caucasians reported a higher percent of congenital onset disabilities
(37.8%) than did Aﬁican Americans (19.8%).

The age range for individuals in the ﬁnal sample spans from a minimum of 17
years of age to a maximum of 66 years of age. The mean age of the participants was
36.3 years, with females being slightly older (36.9) than males (35.7). The mean ages
of the participants categorized by gender and race for Caucasians and African
Americans can be found in Table 4. The mean ages of the participants by onset of
disability can be found in Table 5. Participants with congenital onset of disability

tended to be younger (32.27) than individuals with adult onset of disability (38.07).

77

Table 2

Respondents Categorized by Gender, Race and Onset of Disability (n=196)

 

 

 

Adult Onset Congenital Onset

Group n (%) n (%)
Females (n=94)

African American (n=41) 36 (87.8) 5 (12.2)

Caucasian (n=53) 33 (62.3) 20 (37.3)
Males (n=95)

Aﬁican American (n=50) 37 (74.0) 13 (26.0)

Caucasian (n=45) 28 (62.2) 17 (37.8)

Table 3

Respondents Categorized by Race and Onset of Disability (n=189)

 

Onset of Disability Frequency Percent

 

Aﬁican Americans (n=9l)
Adult Onset 73 80.2
Congenital Onset 18 19.8
Caucasians (n=98)
Adult Onset 61 62.2

Congenital Onset 37 37.8

78

Table 4

Mean Age of Respondents Categorized by Race and Gender (n=192)

 

 

 

Group n Mean Age

Aﬁican American Females 41 37.49

Caucasian Females 53 36.15

African American Males 50 35.44

Caucasian Males 48 36.15
Table 5

Mean Age of Respondents Categorized by Disability Onset (n=196)

 

Group It Mean Age

 

Congenital Onset 56 32.27

Adult Onset 140 38.07

 

79

In terms of marital status of the sample, for both males and females the
majority of the sample was single. A higher percentage of males (56%) were single
than females (43%). In addition slightly more females were married, divorced, and
widowed and separated. A comparison of the participants’ marital status by gender
can be found in Table 6. A comparison of the participants’ marital status by race can
be found in Table 7. A higher percentage of Aﬁican Americans (59.3) were single than
Caucasians (42.6). Caucasians were married and divorced at a higher rate than
Aﬁican Americans. The relationship between participant marital status and disability
onset can be found in Table 8. In general, individuals with congenital onset of
disability were more likely to be single (66.1%) than individuals with adult onset
disability (42.9%). Individuals with adult onset were married, widowed, and separated
at a higher rate than individuals with congenital onset of disability. Finally, individuals
with adult onset of disability had twice the rate of divorce (30.7%) that individuals
with congenital onset (14.3%) had.

The highest educational level attained for individuals in the ﬁnal sample ranged
from some special education or some high school to an individual who had completed
training as a surgeon. Table 9 shows the distribution of participants by gender and
highest educational level attained. In general, males were more likely to have had
some vocational/technical training or to have graduated from vocational/technical
training than females and females were more likely to be college graduates or to have

more than a college education.

80

Table 6

Respondents Categorized by Gender and Marital Status (n=199)

 

 

 

Marital Status Frequency Percent

Females (n=99)

Single 43 43.0
Married 20 20.0
Divorced 26 26.0
Widowed 3 3.0
Separated 7 7.0
Males (n=100)

Single 56 56.0
Married 17 17.0
Divorced 25 25.0
“Widowed 1 1.0

Separated , l 1.0

 

81

Table 7

Respondents Categorized by Race and Marital Status

 

 

 

Marital Status Frequency Percent

Caucasians (n=101)

Single 43 42.6
Married 24 23.8
Divorced 27 26.7
Widowed 2 2.0
Separated 5 5.0
African Americans (n=91)

Single 54 59.3
Married 10 11.0
Divorced 22 21.8
Widowed 2 2.2
Separated 3 3.3

 

82

Table 8

Respondents Categorized by Disability Onset and Marital Status (n=196)

 

 

Marital Status Frequency Percent
Congenital Onset (n=56)

Single 37 66.1

Married 9 16.1

Divorced 8 I 14.3

“fidowed 0 0.0

Separated 2 3.6

 

Adult Onset (n=140)

Single 60' 42.9
Married 27 ' 19.3
Divorced 43 30.7
Widowed 4 2.9

Separated 6 4.3

 

83

Table 9

Respondents Categorized by Gender and Highest Educational Level Attained

 

 

Level of Education Female (n=99) Male (n=100)
n (%) n (%)
Special Education 2 (2.0) 3 (3.0)
Special Education Grad. 2 (2.0) 1 (1.0)
Some High School 13 (13.0) 9 (9.0)
G.E.D. 12 (12.0) 16 (16.0)
High School Graduate 21 (21.0) 19 (19.0)
Some Voc/Tech Training 2 (2.0) 10 (10.0)
Vac/Tech Graduate 3 (3.0) 7 (7.0)
Some College 24 (24.0) 27 (27.0)
AA Degree 1 (1.0) 2 (2.0)
College graduate 10 ( 10.0) 4 (4.0)
More than College Graduate 8 (8.0) 1 (1 .0)
Other 1 (1.0) 1 (1.0)

 

84

In terms of work history, the mean number of years of paid work history (since
age 18) for the total ﬁnal sample was 12.36 years. Males had a mean of 13.45 years of
paid work history whereas females had a mean of 11.26 years of paid work history.
Table 10 displays the mean number of years of paid work history by race and gender
for Caucasians and Aﬁican Americans. In this sample, Caucasian males had the
highest number of years of paid work history since age 18 (14.42), followed by
Aﬁican American males, Caucasian females, and Aﬁican American females had the
lowest mean number of years paid work history (10.59). However it should be noted
that the number of years of paid work history was truncated to only include years of
paid work history since age 18. This may have altered the ﬁnal outcome for the
number of years of paid work experience. For example, one of the African American
women in the sample had begun working in the cotton ﬁelds at the age of 11, however
since this was not paid work experience in adulthood, seven years of her work
experience were not counted. Table 11 displays the breakdown of mean number of
years of paid work experience by disability onset. Individuals with adult onset had on
average 5.67 more years of paid work experience than individuals with congenital
disabilities. However, individuals with adult onset were also on average 5.8 years
older than individuals with congenital disabilities.

In addition to the number of years of paid work history, participants were
asked to provide information regarding their ﬁve most recent jobs. The amount of
information and the speciﬁcity provided by participants varied greatly. The

information in this section is provided for illustrative purposes only. For both Aﬁican

85

Table 10
Mean Number of Years of Paid Work History Since Age 18

of Respondents Categorized by Race and Gender (n=192)

 

 

 

Group n Mean # Of Years Paid Work History
Aﬁican American Females 41 10.59
Caucasian Females 53 11.85
Aﬁican American Males 50 12.50
Caucasian Males 48 14.42
Table 11

Mean Number of Years of Paid Work History Since Age 18

of Respondents Categorized by Disability Onset (n=196)

 

Group V n Mean

 

Adult Onset 140 14.08

Congenital Onset 56 8.41

 

86

American and Caucasian females, many of the previous jobs fell into the categories of
careprovider (e. g., day care, babysitter, nurse aid), factory worker (e. g., assembly,
press operator, factory), food services (e. g., bake shop, cook, waitress, fast food),
maintenance work (e.g., housekeeping, janitorial, maintenance, cleaning), general labor
(e.g., stock work, cashiering, warehouse), and oﬂice work (e.g., secretary, oﬁce
manager, data entry clerk, clerical). While Caucasian males also listed some jobs in
these same areas they also reported experience in a variety of skilled labor positions
such as pipeﬁtter, concrete ﬁnisher, glass cutter, designer, carpenter, and welder. A
number of Caucasian males also listed experience with truck driving. Caucasian males
also listed more jobs with wpervisory components (crew leader, lawn care supervisor,
manager of commercial building, system administrator). African American males listed
many of the job titles listed by Aﬁican American females, Caucasian females and also
Caucasian males. However, Aﬁican American males did not list job titles that had
obvious supervisory components to them as did Caucasian males. Of the four groups,
Aﬁican American males listed the most experience with Military service (Army, Coast
Guard, US. Military, Army tank test driver).

Participants were asked if they had previously been a Michigan Rehabilitation
Services client. The majority of the study participants (81%) had not previously
received services from MRS. Participants were also asked if they had previously
received any counseling or job placement assistance elsewhere, again the majority of

the participants (71.4%) indicated that they had not.

87

Participants were asked what types of services they would like to receive from
Michigan Rehabilitation Services. Not surprisingly, the service sought most often was
help ﬁnding a job (75.9%). The second most sought service was help with getting
further education (69.8%). These responses were consistent across groups when
gender and racial diﬂ'erences were examined. Other notable results are that African
American males were most likely to be seeking counseling (42%) and African
American females were most likely to be seeking assistance with child care (26.8%). |
A complete breakdown of services sought by gender and race for African Americans
and Caucasians can be found in Table 12. Study participants had the opportunity to
write in what other services they were seeking ﬁ'om MRS, responses included:
information and referral, driver’s education, medical help, assistance qualifying for
Supplemental Security Income/ Social Security Disability Income, dentures and glasses,
washing machine and dryer, housing, and others. '

Respondents were asked to indicate the most severe disability they have that
impedes their ability to work. A breakdown of disability groups by gender and race
for African Americans and Caucasians can be found in Table 13. Fortyotwo percent of
African American males reported that alcoholism/drug abuse was the most severe
disability, or one of the most severe disabilities that impeded their ability to work
(n=50). This was followed by multiple disabilities (26%), learning disablities (20%),
and other (14%). For Aﬁican American females (n=41), multiple disabilities were

reported by 36.6% of the sample, followed by alcoholism/drug abuse (31.7%), arthritis

88

Table 12

Respondents Categorized by Gender, Race and Services Sought

 

 

Service Caucasian African American Caucasian Aﬁican American

Sought Females Females Males Males
(n=53) (n=41) (n=48) (n=50)

% % % %

Help Finding 79.2 70.7 75.0 78.0

A Job

Help with 64.2 73.2 62.5 80.0

Getting Further

Education

Car/Bus 13.2 34.1 16.7 54.0

Equipment 13.2 12.2 12.5 13.0

Counseling 39.6 36.6 25.0 42.0

Child Care 11.3 26.8 ' 4.2 0.0

Other 11.3 7.3 22.9 10.0

 

Note: Totals equal more than 100%, respondents were asked to indicate all services
sought.

89

Table 13

Respondents Categorized by Gender, Race and Most Severe Disability

 

 

Disability Caucasian Aﬁican American Caucasian African American
Females Females Males Males
(n=53) (nﬂl) (n=48) (n=50)
% % % %
Learning 26.4 12.2 12.5 20.0
Head Injury 7.5 4.9 10.4 12.0
Alcoholism/ 7.5 31.7 18.8 42.0
Drug Abuse
Back Injury 15.1 24.4 35.4 12.0
Arthritis 17.0 31.7 18.8 4.0
Mental Illness 28.3 24.4 16.7 8.0
Mental 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0
Retardation
Epilepsy 5.7 0.0 2.1 2.0
Spinal Cord 5.7 7.3 10.4 6.0
Injury
Heart Disease 1.9 4.9 6.3 6.0
Amputation 0.0 0.0 4.2 2.0
Visual 7.5 4.9 6.3 10.0
Impairment
Hearing Impair. 3.8 2.4 4.2 2.0

Deafness

 

90

Table 13 (Cont’d)

 

Disability Caucasian Aﬁican American Caucasian Aﬁican American

 

Females Females Males Males
(n=53) (n=41) (n=48) (n=50)
% % % %
Chronic Disease 9.4 9.8 4.2 0.0
Multiple Dis. 43.4 36.6 41.7 26.0
Mental Illness 1.9 0.0 2.1 ' 4.0
& Substance Abuse
Diabetes 0.0 4.9 2.1 2.0
HIV/AIDS 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0
Kidney 1.9 0.0 2.1 2.0
’ Leg 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0

Foot ’ 1.9 4.9 2.1 4.0
Osteoporosis 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0
Other 35.8 14.6 12.5 14.0

 

Note: Totals equal more than 100%, some respondents indicated more than one most
severe disability.

91

(31.7%), back injury (24.4%), and mental illness (24.4%). For Caucasian males
(n=48), 41.7% reported multiple disabilities, followed by back injury (35.4%),
alcoholism/drug abuse (18.8%), and arthritis (18.8%). For Caucasian females (n=53),
43.4% reported multiple disabilites, followed by other (35.8%), mental illness
(28.3%), and learning disabilities (26.4%). Individuals with multiple disabilities
included those with more than one disability. Examples of multiple disabilities
included: back injury and arthritis; head injury and back injury; alcoholism/drug abuse
and arthritis; Fibromyalgia and arthritis; mental illness, arthritis, and back injury;
learning disability, arthritis, mental illness, migraines, and shoulder injury. Disabilities
listed in the “other” category included: sickle cell anemia, chronic fatigue syndrome,
Fibromyalgia, connective tissue disease, obesity, carpal tunnel syndrome, teeth,
asthma, emphysema, Parkinson’s disease, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, carotid
artery disease, migraines and joint disease. It should be noted that many of the study
participants reported being in recovery ﬁom alcohol/drug abuse, however did not
consider alcohol/drug abuse to be the most severe disability, or one of the most severe
disabilities they had that impeded their ability to work.
W115

In order to examine the effect of the independent variables on the OSES and
TSOSS separately, two 2X2X2 MANOVAs were run. One MANOVA was run with
the independent variables “Gender”, “Race”, and “Onset of Disability”, and with the
dependent variables of factor scores for the four factors (verbal, quantitative, physical,

aesthetic) on the TSOSS. A second 2X2X2 MANOVA was run with the independent

92

variables “Gender”, “Race”, and “Onset of Disability” and the dependent variables of
subscale scores on the OSES (Traditional Male, Traditional Female).

In terms of the ﬁrst MANOVA, there was a main effect for onset of disability

 

for Factor 2 (Quantitative), F (1, 161) =4.78, p<.03. Individuals with adult onset
disability had signiﬁcantly higher scores than individuals with congenital onset
disability. There was a main effect for race for Factor 1 (Verbal), F (l, 161) = 7.13,
p<.008, for Factor 3 (Physical), F (1, 161) = 11.01, p<.001, and for Factor 4
(Aesthetic), F (1, 161) = 5.22, p<.024. On each of these three factors, Aﬁican
Americans scored signiﬁcantly higher than Caucasians. There was a main effect for
gender for Factor 1 (Verbal), F (1, 161) = 6.11, p<.014, for Factor 2 (Quantitative), F
(1, 161) = 8.97, p<.003 and for Factor 3 (Physical), F (l, 161) = 15.13, p<.000.
Males scored signiﬁcantly higher on these three factors than did females. There were
no signiﬁcant interaction effects. The results of this MANOVA are found in Tables
14-16.

The second MANOVA showed main effects for onset of disability for the
Traditionally Male Subscale, F (l, 161) = 5.93, p < .016, and the Traditionally Female
Subscale, F (l, 161) = 7.02, p < .009, of the Occupational Self—Efﬁcacy Scale.
Individuals with adult onset scored signiﬁcantly higher on these
subscales than did individuals with congenital onset disability. There was a main effect
for race for the Traditionally Male Subscale, F (1, 161) = 3.88, p < .05. Aﬁican

Americans scored signiﬁcantly higher on the Traditionally Male Subscale than

93

Table 14

MANOVA Results for Univariate F Test for Effect of Gender on TSOSS Factors

 

 

 

Factor F Signiﬁcance of F
Factor 1 (Verbal) 6.12 014*
Factor 2 (Quantitative) 8.98 .003“
Factor 3 (Physical) 15.13 000*
Factor 4 (Aesthetic) 2.78 .097
Note: "' p<.05

Table 15

MANOVA Results for Univariate F Test for Effect of Race on TSOSS Factors

 

 

Factor F Signiﬁcance of F
Factor 1 (Verbal) 7.13 008*
Factor 2 (Quantitative) 3.30 .071
Factor 3 (Physical) 11.01 .001 *
Factor 4 (Aesthetic) 5.22 024*

 

Note: *p<.05

94

Table 16

MANOVA Results for Univariate F Test for Effect of Disability Onset on TSOSS

 

 

Factors
Factor F Signiﬁcance of F
Factor 1 (Verbal) 3.51 .063
Factor 2 (Quantitative) 4.78 .030“
Factor 3 (Physical) .01 .913
Factor 4 (Aesthetic) .13 .720

 

Note: *p<.05

95

Caucasians. There was a main effect for gender for the Traditionally Male Subscale,
F(l,161) = 10.08, p < .002. Males scored signiﬁcantly higher than females on this
subscale. There were no signiﬁcant interaction effects. The results of this MANOVA
are available in Tables 17-19. Complete tables for the univariate tests of the
MANOVAs can be found in Appendix L.

The means and standard deviations of the Traditionally Female occupations of
the OSES by gender and race are presented in Table 20. The mean for Aﬁican
American males was the highest of the four groups compared. Means and standard
deviations of the Traditionally Male occupations of the OSES by gender and race are
contained in Table 21. Again, Aﬁican American males had the highest mean score.
Table 22 lists this same information for the four factor scores for the Task Speciﬁc
Occupational Self-Efﬁcacy Scale. Similar results are found on the four factor scores
of the TSOSS with African American males reporting the highest level of self-eﬂicacy
on each of the four factors. Correlations among the total scores, factor scores and
subscales of the Occupational Self-Efﬁcacy Scale and the Task Speciﬁc Occupational
Self-Eﬂicacy Scale by gender are displayed in Table 23. The scores above the
diagonal are the correlations for males and the scores below the diagonal represent
those for the females. The correlations for males range from a low of .46 between
Factor 2 (Quantitative) and Factor 3 (Physical) of the TSOSS and a high of .98
between the Traditional Male subscale on the OSES and the total score on the OSES
and the Traditional Female subscale on the OSES and the total score on the OSES.

For females the correlations range from a low of .50 between the Traditional Male

96

subscale of the OSES and Factor 3 (Physical) on the TSOSS and a high of .97
between the Traditional Male subscale score on the OSES and the total score on the
OSES and the Traditional Female subscale on the OSES and the total score on the
OSES. While not tested for signiﬁcance, overall, the self-efﬁcacy measures appear to
be more highly correlated for females than for males in the present study.

Finally, Table 24 displays the Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency reliabilities
for the total scores of the TSOSS and OSES and for each of the factor scores and
subscale scores. These measures range from .90 for the aesthetic factor (Factor 4) on
the TSOSS, to a high of .98 for the total score of the OSES, indicating that each of the

factor scores, the subscale scores and the total scores are highly consistent.

97

Table 17

MANOVA Results for Univariate F Test for Effect of Gender on OSES Subscales

 

 

 

Subscale F Signiﬁcance of F
Traditional Male 10.08 .002“
Traditional Female .68 .410
Note: ‘p<.05

Table 18

MANOVA Results for Univariate F Test for Effect of Race on OSES Subscales

 

 

 

Subscale F Signiﬁcance of F
Traditional Male 3.89 050*
Traditional Female 3.73 .055
Note:*p<.05

Table 19

MANOVA Results for Univariate F Test for Effect of Disability Onset on OSES

 

 

Subscales
Subscale F Signiﬁcance of F
Traditional Male 5.93 016*
Traditional Female 7.02 .009*

 

Note: *p<.05

98

Table 20
Traditionally Female Career Self-Efficacy Scores

as a Function of Gender and Race

 

 

 

 

 

Males Females
Race MEAN SD N MEAN SD N
Caucasians 72.00 45.18 43 84.73 47.61 49
Aﬁican 110.40 52.28 45 94.53 53.95 38
Americans

Table 21
Traditionally Male Career Self-Efﬁcacy Scores
as a Function of Gender and Race

Males Females
Race MEAN SD N MEAN SD N
Caucasians 70.89 45.28 46 59.04 47.41 49
African 107.44 51.88 48 69.54 55.62 41

Americans

 

99

Table 22
Task Speciﬁc Occupational Self-Efﬁcacy Factor Scores

as a Function of Gender and Race

 

 

 

 

Caucasian Males Aﬁican American Males
Factor MEAN SD N MEAN SD N
Factor 1 (Verbal) 54.87 10.91 46 61.65 12.13 46
Factor 2 (Quant) 49.17 13.35 46 53.35 13.24 46
Factor 3 (Physical) 47.51 11.51 47 57.52 12.76 48
Factor 4 (Aesthetic) 42.94 10.36 47 52.75 12.67 48

Caucasian Females African American Females
Factor MEAN SD N MEAN SD N
Factor 1 (Verbal) 50.53 13.76 53 58.16 14.67 40
Factor 2 (Quant) 41.83 15.11 52 48.56 14.66 41
Factor 3 (Physical) 40.42 13.44 52 45.44 16.51 39
Factor 4 (Aesthetic) 43.00 13.04 51 45.82 14.43 38

 

100

Table 23

Correlations Among General and Task Speciﬁc Self-Efﬁcacy Measures

 

 

 

 

OSES TSOSS
l 2 3 4 5 6 7
Occupational Self-Efﬁcacy
Scale(OSES)

l.TraditionalMale .93" .98" .56" .61” .54" .57" .67"
2. TraditionalFemale .89" .98“ .59" .60" .59" .62" .70"
3.Total Score .97" .97" .59" .62M .58" .60" .70"
Task-Speciﬁc Occupational

Self-Eﬂicacy Scale (TSOSS)

4. Factor] .64" .74M .71" .83” .59” .71" .92"
5.Factor2 .75M .76" .78" .84" .46" .66" .89"
6. Factor3 .50" .55" .54" .62" .63" .57" .77"
7. Factor4 .71“ .75** .76" .74" .76“ .65" .86“
8. Total .74" .79" .79" .91” .92“ .82** .88"

 

Note: Correlations above the diagonal are those for 80 males, and those below the

diagonal are those for 85 females.

** .001 Signiﬁcance level using a two tailed test.

101

Table 24
Cronbach’s Alpha Reliabilities for Task-Speciﬁc Occupational Self-Efﬁcacy Scale

Factor Scores and Occupational Self-Efﬁcacy Scale Scores

 

Variable #Items Alpha

 

Task-Speciﬁc Occupational

Self-Efﬁcacy Scale

Factor 1 (Verbal) 15 .93
Factor 2 (Quantitative) 15 .94
Factor 3 (Physical) 15 .93
Factor 4 (Aesthetic) 15 .90
Total Score 60 .97

Occupational Self-Efﬁcacy Scale

Traditionally female-dominated
occupations 20 .96

Traditionally male-dominated
occupations 20 .97

Total Score 40 .98

 

Chapter V
DISCUSSION

Summary of Results

The major purpose of the present study was to provide a foundation of
knowledge on the career self-efﬁcacy of women and men with disabilities while
simultaneously examining the effects of gender, race and disability onset. This was
accomplished through the measurement of career self-efﬁcacy both at the occupational
and task speciﬁc levels.

More speciﬁcally, the following research questions were posed:

1. Do women with disabilities have lower self-efﬁcacy ratings for
occupational tasks, occupations, or traditional versus non-traditional
occupations than men with disabilities?

2. Do individuals with congenital onset of disability have self-efﬁcacy
ratings that are equal to individuals with adult onset of disability for
occupational tasks, occupations, or traditional versus non-traditional
occupations?

3. Do individuals who are racial/ethnic minorities have lower self-eﬂicacy
ratings than individuals who are non-minorities for occupational tasks,

occupations, or traditional versus non-traditional occupations?

102

103

The methodology used to examine the answers to these questions was the
administration of two measures of career self efﬁcacy, the Occupational Self-Eﬂicacy
Scale and the Task Speciﬁc Occupational Self-Efﬁcacy Scale, to individuals with
disabilities throughout Michigan. The sample used in this study consisted of 199
individuals with disabilities who attended group or individual orientation-to-sewices
meetings at Michigan Jobs Commission, Michigan Rehabilitation Services.

In terms of the ﬁrst research question, signiﬁcant gender diﬂ'erences were
found on a number of the measures of career self-efﬁcacy. Speciﬁcally on the OSES,
males scored signiﬁcantly higher than females on the Traditionally Male subscale.
There were no signiﬁcant gender differences on the Traditionally Female subscale.
This indicates that for occupations that are considered to be traditionally male
dominated (e.g., engineer, draﬁer) males scored signiﬁcantly higher than females. On
occupations that are traditionally female dominated (e. g., secretary, dental hygienist)
there were no signiﬁcant gender differences. The results also indicate that the subscale
scores on the OSES are highly correlated with each other and with the total score both
for males and females.

On the T808 S, the measure of task-speciﬁc self-efficacy in this study, there
were also signiﬁcant gender differences on three of the four factor scores. Males
scored signiﬁcantly higher on the Verbal, Quantitative, and Physical factors. There
were no gender differences on the Aesthetic factor. This indicates that males had
greater self-efﬁcacy in those tasks that comprised each of these domains. Males

reported higher task self-efﬁcacy in their verbal abilities (e.g., speak convincingly,

104

negotiate with others), their quantitative abilities (e. g., measure and estimate
quantities) and in their physical abilities (e.g., lift and carry items, endure long periods
of driving). No gender differences were apparent in aesthetic abilities (e.g., know
about hair and skin care, memorize theatrical dialogue).

Taken as a whole, the results ﬁ'om the present study indicate that on four of
the six measures of career self-efficacy there were signiﬁcant gender differences.
These results are consistent with those found in other studies (e. g., Betz & Hackett,
1981: Williams, 1993; Osipow & Rooney, 1989; Osipow, Temple & Rooney, 1993).
A somewhat perhaps surprising result is that women did not report signiﬁcantly higher
career self-efficacy than men on the traditionally female occupations presented in the
OSES. This is a telling result in that even in occupations where women have
predominantly been employed, men have as much conﬁdence in their abilities to
perform these occupations as do the women.

In generaL the results of the present study are consistent with other studies that
have examined gender diﬁ‘erences in the context of career self—efﬁcacy. Williams
(1993) administered the TSOSS and the OSES, along with a measure of feminist
orientation to 270 undergraduate students. Because this study is the only other that
has examined the relationships between the OSES and the TSOS S, comparisons will
primarily be made with the results of this study with the present study.

Demographics of the “Williams study were as follows, the age range of the participants
was 17-57 years with a mean of20. 12, the sample was 59% female, and the race or

ethnicity of the participants was not identiﬁed.

105

Williams (1993) found signiﬁcant gender differences for the Factor 2
(Quantitative) and Factor 3 (Physical) of the TSOSS. Gender differences were also
found on the OSES, with males reporting signﬁcantly higher self-efﬁcacy for the
Traditional Male subscale. There were no signiﬁcant gender differences for Factor 1
(Verbal) or Factor 4 (Aesthetic). There were also no signiﬁcant gender differences for
the Traditional Female subscale of the OSES.

Mean total scores for the Williams (1993) sample on the OSES were 227.6 for
males and 222.4 for females when the OSES was presented ﬁrst. The mean total
scores on the OSES for individuals in the present study are 217.95 for Aﬁican
American males, 167.68 for African American females, 144.27 for Caucasian females
and 141.12 for Caucasian males. The only group in the present sample that came near
to the mean scores on the OSES in the Williams (1993) study are the Aﬁican
American males. Of note is the fact that while the Mlliams study found statistically
. signiﬁcant differences for gender, the actual mean score differences are much smaller
than the differences attained in the present study.

Williams (1993) also examined the mean scores for males and females on the
four factor scores of the TSOSS. Mean factor scores for males were as follows:
Verbal (60.5), Quantitative (57.5), Physical (62.1), and Aesthetic (47.6). Factor scores
for females were as follows: Verbal (60.9), Quantitative (53.4), Physical (52.8), and
Aesthetic (47.5). In the present study these mean factor scores were as follows: for
African American males, Verbal (61.65), Quantitative (53.3 5), Physical (57.2),

Aesthetic (52.75); for Aﬁican American females, 58.16 (Verbal), 48.56 (Quantitative),

106

45.44 (Physical), 45.82 (Aesthetic); for Caucasian males, 54.87 (Verbal), 49.17
(Quantitative), 47.51 (Physical), 42.94 (Aesthetic); and for Caucasian females, 50.53
(Verbal), 41.83 (Quantitative), 40.42 (Physical), and 43.00 (Aesthetic). Again, a
similar pattern is found with Aﬁ'ican American males having the highest mean scores,
which most closely resemble those of the participants in the Williams (1993) study.

When comparing the current sample with the Williams (1993) samme there are
a number of notable differences. In terms of age, the mean age of individuals in the
Williams study is approximately 15 years younger than individuals in the present study.
Individuals in the Williams study consisted of college students with the rank of
freshman (62%), sophomore (25%), junior (8%), senior (3%), three continuing
education students and one graduate student. In the present sample, educational level
ranged from some special education through an individual who had training as a
surgeon. Most notably the present study consisted of individuals with disabilities and
included Aﬁican Americans.

Additional comparisons that can be made with the “Williams (1983) study are
the correlations among the general and task-speciﬁc self-efﬁcacy measures.
Correlations among the self-eﬂicacy measures in the Williams study ranged from a low
of .18, to a high of .94, for males and from a low of .36, to a high of .92, for females.
In the present study the correlations for males ranged from .54 to .98 and for females
from .50 to .97. Correlations among the self-efﬁcacy measures appear to be higher for

the population in the present study than in the Williams study. Williams found that

107

self-efﬁcacy measures were more highly correlated for females than for males, these
results appear to have been replicated in the present study.

In terms of the second research question, signiﬁcant differences in self-eﬂicacy
scores were found between individuals with adult and congenital onset disabilities. On
the OSES, individuals with adult onset disability scored signiﬁcantly higher on the
Traditional Male subscale and the Traditional Female subscale. In other words,
individuals with adult onset disabilities had greater conﬁdence in their abilities to
complete the educational and job duty requirements for the twenty occupations
regardless of whether individuals in these occupations were traditionally female or
male. These results were anticipated given the socialization and lack of opportunities
that individuals with congenital disabilities often experience.

On the TSOSS signiﬁcant diﬂ’erences were found only for Factor 2
(Quantitative). Individuals with adult onset disabilities had signiﬁcantly higher scores
on items related to quantitative abilities. There were no signiﬁcant differences for the
other three factors, however, Factor 1 (Verbal) leans towards signiﬁcance with
F=3.51, p<.063. It should also be noted that individuals with adult onset had on
average 5.67 years of additional work experience and were on average 5.8 years older.
However, due to the unequal representation of individuals with congenital and adult
onset disabilities in the present study, these results should be viewed as preliminary,
rather than deﬁnitive.

These results should also be cautiously interpreted due to the confounding

variable of disability type. Due to the nature of disability, there are a number of

108

disabilities that are congenital and others that occur during adulthood. It may be that
the results obtained are more a function of the types of disabilities experienced
congenitally rather than the time of disability onset. Another possibility is that lower
scores reported by individuals with congenital disabilities are a reﬂection of the reality
of their experiences and awareness of limitations. No comparisons can be made with
other empirical works because no other studies have examined the impact of disability
onset or type of disability on career self-efﬁcacy.

In terms of the third research question, signiﬁcant differences were found,
however they were not in the expected direction. On the OSES, there is a signiﬁcant
eﬂ‘ect for race on the Traditional Male subscale. Aﬁican Americans scored
signiﬁcantly higher on traditionally male occupations than did Caucasians. The
Traditional Female subscale also approaches signiﬁcance with F=3.73, p<.055. On the
TSOSS there were signiﬁcant effects for race on three of the four factors. Aﬁican
Americans indicated greater conﬁdence than Caucasians in their verbal abilities
(Factor 1), their physical abilities (Factor 3) and their aesthetic abilities (Factor 4).
There were no signiﬁcant differences based on race reported for Factor 2
(Quantitative). Taken together, these results indicate that in the present study African
Americans indicated higher career self-efﬁcacy on four of the six measures. Other
studies that have included racial/ethnic minority groups have not examined differences
with the majority group, therefore no comparisons can be made with other studies.

An unanticipated result was the high level of career self-efﬁcacy that African

American males reported. One possibility is that these high reports are somehow

109

related to the fact that many of the Aﬁican American males in the present study
reported that alcoholism/drug abuse was their most severe disability that impeded

their ability to work. Possibly as a result of this, many of these men were being
referred to Michigan Rehabilitation Services directly from their treatment programs. It
may be that having recently gone through intensive therapy and treatment that their
career self-efﬁcacy has somehow been increased. However, this is a somewhat
unlikely scenario given that career self-eﬁcacy develops over time.

Fisher and Harrison (1997) provide a historical perspective of the complex
relationship that Aﬁican Americans have had with alcohol use in the United States.
During slavery two perpectives developed. One perspective was that drinking alcohol
was a natural reaction to enslavement and was therefore an escape ﬁ'om slavery and all
it entailed. The second way of thinking was that alcohol clouded thinking and
judgement and was therefore dangerous and contributed to the enslavement of
individuals.

Today, the relationship between Aﬁican Americans and drug/alcohol abuse
continues to be a complex one. African American males over the age of 35 are much
more likely to use illicit drugs than are Caucasian males. Also African American
women were found to be more likely to have used crack cocaine than any other
racial/ethnic group. The availability of alcohol/drugs in impoverished areas has been
identiﬁed as a contributor to the rate of use (Fisher & Harrison, 1997). King (1982),
cited in Fisher and Harrison (1997), hypothesized that increased drinking by Aﬁican

American males during middle age may be due to frustrated attempts in attaining love

110

and work aspirations. Other studies cited by Fisher and Harrison (1997) indicate that
increased alcohol use and abuse are a result of ﬁustrated attempts at matching
aspirations with achievement.

In the present study, African American males indicated that they had in general
a high level of career self-emcacy both in terms of occupations and also vocational
tasks. In fact, the scores reported by Aﬁican American males with disabilities are
almost equal to those reported by college students in the Williams (1993) study. Due
to the complex relationship between alcohol consumption, drug use and employment it
is unclear whether Aﬁican American males’ drinking and drug use lead to vocational
problems, or if ﬁustrations arising ﬁ'om not attaining vocational aspirations lead to
problems with increased alcohol and drug use.

Frustrated vocational aspirations, however, do not explain alcohol/drug
use/abuse at younger ages. For example, a number of individuals in the present study
explained that they had been using alcohOI/drugs since the age of seven or eight.
However, availability and impoverished conditions could be contributing factors to use
at this early age. Clearly the relationship between career self-efﬁcacy, substance

abuse, race/ethnicity, vocational aspirations, is one that warrants ﬁirther research.

Implications of Findings

Practiee

There are a number of implications for practice that can be derived ﬁom the
present study. First interventions and then the psychometric properties of the OSES

and the TSOSS with a population of individuals with disabilities will be discussed.

111

Inteimntions

When examining group differences in the present study, it becomes clear that
eﬂ‘orts should be targeted at increasing the career self-efﬁcacy of individuals with
congenital onset disabilities and women with disabilities. More speciﬁcally, the results
of this study draw attention to the low career self-efﬁcacy that individuals with
congenital disabilities and women with disabilities have. However, when the results of
this study are examined in the context of other studies conducted with non-disabled
individuals, they clearly indicate that increased career self-efﬁcacy needs to be an
explicit goal of career counseling with all individuals with disabilities.

Rehabilitation and career counselors may need to begin to develop a variety of
interventions which include a speciﬁc goal of increased career self-eﬂicacy. After a
determination of low career self-efﬁcacy has been made, appropriate interventions will
needto be developed. These interventions could be based on Bandura’s (1977)
sources of self-emcacy: performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal
persuasion, and physiological states (emotional arousal). As noted by Bandura,
repeated successful experiences contribute to a sense of personal mastery and raise
mastery expectations. Similarly, repeated experiences of personal failure lead to
lowered expectations of mastery. For individuals with disabilities who have had a
series of unsuccessﬁrl experiences related to academics or vocational pursuits
(e.g., failed classes, several short term jobs), whether they be due to disability,
individual or environmental factors (e.g., lack of accommodations, unequal treatment),

a series of successﬁll experiences may need to be developed to increase career self-

112

efﬁcacy. As noted by Bandura, timing is important in that after strong efﬁcacy
expectations have been developed, occasional experiences of failure have less of a
negative impact. The alternative can also be presumed. For an individual who has
weak self-efficacy expectations, additional experiences of failure have a greater
negative impact, and more experiences of success may be needed to positively impact
self-efﬁcacy.

While vicarious experiences are less dependable sources of self-efficacy than
personal successful experiences, they can be a signiﬁcant source of career self-efﬁcacy.
Rehabilitation and career counselors may want to target role models who share
gender, racial/ethnic, and disability characteristics with their client to make the role
models more credible. Perhaps giving individuals with disabilities the opportunity to
watch individuals with similar characteristics be successful at a variety of occupations
and vocational tasks will encourage them to consider these occupations or tasks. For
example, watching someone with a double upper extremity amputation use a voice
activated computer, could open up this possiblity to someone who has limited use of
their arms, or other related disabilities.

Credibility, as well as trustworthiness and prestige are also considered by
individuals when evaluating verbal persuasion (Bandura, 1977). As noted in the
Sheppard, Bunton, Menifee, Rocha (1995) study, matching counselors and clients on
racial/ethnic characteristics assisted in the establishment of trust, whereas similar
disability had a higher priority than similarities based on race, gender or ethnic

background for a mostly male sample. Rehabilitation and career counselors will need

113

to consider this information when doing career counseling and deve10ping
interventions that are appropriate based on gender, race/ethnic minority status and
disability.

Two examples of interventions will be given based on the results of the
present study. Caucasian females reported the lowest level of career self—efficacy in
the present study. These results were consistent across all of the OSES and TSOSS
factors and subscales with the exception of the Traditional Female subscale of the
OSES where Caucasian females scored slightly higher than Caucasian males. These
results are not only statistically signiﬁcant but also appear to have some very real
clinical signiﬁcance. Clearly for the Caucasian females in this study, low career self-
eﬂicacy is an issue and increased career self-efficacy should be a goal of rehabilitation
or career counseling.

A variety of experiences could be developed for these women to impact their
own personal experiences for success. As well, they could be provided with the
opportunities to observe other women with disabilities as they successﬁilly negotiate
vocational tasks. In addition, a woman with a disability may need to be targeted as a
counselor, both to provide a credible source of verbal persuasian, and also to act as a
role model.

For African American males in the present study, low career self-efﬁcacy did
not appear to be as much of an issue. African American males consistently scored
higher on all measures of both the OSES and the TSOSS than Aﬁican American

females, Caucasian males, and Caucasian females. As mentioned earlier, this could be

114

a function of the high representation of individuals with a substance abuse disability.
Regardless, for the group in the present study, interventions may need to be focused
on helping individuals to attain a level of vocational success which is aligned with their
career aspirations and career self-efficacy. The work of the counselor and client could
focus more on recovery and maintaining a substance ﬁ'ee lifestyle. Perhaps this need is
reﬂected in the high percentage of Aﬁican American males who indicated that one of
the services they were seeking was counseling. Also, a counselor who has personal
experience with recovery may have more credibility. Other areas of focus could be
intervening with employers to overcome racial bias and discrimination, and helping to
remove barriers standing between the individual, their career self-efﬁcacy, and their
level of vocational success.

These two approaches with these two populations would be very diﬂ‘erent
in their goals and in their focus. These are only two brief examples of how
interventions based on assessment of career self-efﬁcacy may be tailored to the needs
of the individual.

Use of the OSES end TSOSS

Most individuals who participated in the present study had no difficulties with
the completion of the instruments used for data collection. However, individuals who
were cognitively limited did have some trouble understanding the instruments and in
the case of three individuals, they were unable to complete the instrument. With non-
readers, the accommodation of reading the instrument to them was made. This was a

necessary accommodation for six individuals. The implications are that they OSES

115

and TSOSS are both instruments that have utility with individuals with disabilities in
assessing career self-eﬂicacy.

Speciﬁc item performance was also examined. While item means were clearly
lower for the population in the present study, there was a range of responses for all
items. Although restriction of range had been anticipated as a problem it did not
appear to be a problem with the sample for the present study.

Finally, comparisons can be made between the Cronbach’s Alpha measures of
reliability attained with the present study and the Williams (1993) study. The
Cronbach’s Alpha reliabilities in the Williams (1993) study ranged from a low of .88
for the Verbal factor, to a high of .95 for both the total score on the 60 items TSOSS,
and the 40 item OSES. In the present study, the Cronbach’s Alpha reliabilities range
ﬁ'om .90 to .98, indicating high internal consistency when used with this population.
In conclusion, the OSES and TSOSS appear to be appropriate instruments to use
when assessing career self-efﬁcacy for many individuals with disabilities. Given the
results of this study, rehabilitation counselors and vocational counselors who work
with individuals with disabilities may want to consider including the assessment of
career self-efﬁcacy as part of vocational assessment.

Educatien pf Rehabilitatien (QQQneelere

Career self-efﬁcacy theory is addressed by most texts brieﬂy in the context of a

promising theory in its application to individuals with disabilities, individuals from

racial/ethnic minority groups and women. However, because career self-efficacy

116

theory has only been in existence for the past 15 years, little emphasis is placed on it in
comparison to other more researched theories.

The results of the present study indicate that rehabilitation counselors and
counselors in training need to be made aware of differences in career self-efﬁcacy, how
career self-efficacy impacts the career development of an individual and how to
intervene with that individual to increase their career self-efﬁcacy if needed.
Counselors in training should be taught to include assessment of career self-efﬁcacy in
their vocational assessment of clients. Counselors need to be made aware of
instruments that are available for the assessment of career self-eﬁcacy both at the
occupational and task level. They also need to be trained in the interpretation of those
instruments and to become aware of the sources of career self-efficacy and how to
develop interventions that are gender, disability and culturally appropriate for their
clients.

Peliey

The results of the present study should be viewed within the context of the
current political climate and with an awareness of the inter-relatedness of the systems
that serve individuals with disabilities. This study took place during a time when a
threat existed that individuals with a disability of substance abuse or alcoholism would
have their Social Security Disability Insurance (S SDI) beneﬁts terminated. This threat
may have prompted individuals who otherwise may not have applied for services with
Michigan Rehabilitation Services to apply. Without the support of SSDI, these

individuals are likely to turn to other systems for support.

n7

Similarly, recent changes in welfare legislation may result in individuals who
have historically received services from other systems to turning to the public
vocational system for services. The public rehabilitation program needs to be
reponsive to the needs of these populations and to the possible inﬂux of individuals
who have historically not been served by that system.

Limitations

Interpretation of the results and conclusions in this study should be considered
in the context of a few limitations. This study was limited by the fact that data
collection only took place in the state of Michigan. Also due to the limited number of
ﬁeld ofﬁces that were doing group orientation to services meetings at the time of data
collection, random selection of these offices was not possible. Collecting data in a
group setting and on an individual basis may be considered a limitation of the study.
However, randomness of the individuals included in the study was increased because
individuals were asked to participate in the study as they came in to apply for services.
Also, the selection of offices with group orientations in each area and with the
addition of individual intake days in three of the four areas, geographic representation
was increased.

An additional limitation of this study is the reading level of the instruments
used for data collection. Individuals who were cognitively limited in their ability to
understand the instruments were not included in the study. Speciﬁcally three
individuals were removed from the ﬁnal sample, one because his brother responded to

a number of the items for him, and two additional individuals with whom the

118

instruments could not be completed because of their inability to understand the items.
The instruments were read to six individuals who self-identiﬁed as non-readers or as
having difﬁculty with reading.

Also, in regards to representation of disability populations individuals with
mental retardation are not represented in the sample, nor are individuals with
blindness. These are two prominent disability groups that are obviously absent from
the study participants. There also appears to be an over-representation of individuals
with substance abuse disabilities, especially among Aﬁican American males. However,
over 30 disabilities including cognitive, emotional, psychiatric and physical diSabilities
are represented in the ﬁnal sample.

In regards to the representation of ethnic/minority groups, the study is limited
in that it only represents comparisons made between Caucasians and African
Americans. While every attempt was made to increase the cultural diversity of the
participants, only six individuals who were not Caucasian nor African American were
included in the ﬁnal sample. However, a strength of the study is the strong
representation of both women and Aﬁ'ican Americans. The higher proportion of
Aﬁican Americans was attained by oversampling areas with a higher proportion of
racial/ethnic minorities. It is also important to note that the percentage of non African
American minorities served by MJC, MRS in 1993 across the state was 3.7%, and the
representation of these same ethnic minority groups in the present study was 3.5%.

The reliance on self-report is an additional limitation of the present study. In

the case of individuals with substance abuse disabilities, denial is often a manifestation

119

of this disability. Denial of limitations may have played a role in the validity of the
self-report scores for individuals with substance abuse disabilities. Also due to the
oppression that some populations have experienced, psychological defenses that have
developed as a result of oppression may have impacted the validity of some self-
reports. However, because self-efﬁcacy is a cognition there is no other way of
obtaining this information.

A ﬁnal limitation of this study is in regards to the analyses conducted. Due to
the size of the sample it was only possible to make between group comparisons. By
putting all of the various disability groups together in the analysis some of the detail of
the sample is lost. Also in placing individuals into groups based on race and disability
onset, some of the richness of personal experience is lost. However, the purpose of
this study was to provide a foundation of knowledge upon which to build. The
information gained in this study opens the door for ﬁirther research which can begin to
examine within group differences.

Implications for Further Resear_ch

A number of implications for ﬁrrther research appear warranted. Certain noted
limitations in the present study could be addressed by further research. As noted, data
collection in this study was limited to the state of Michigan. In this regard, this study
could be replicated in other states with those public rehabilitation agencies. Other
settings could also be examined (e.g., substance abuse treatment facilities, independent
living centers, disability management settings, private sector rehabilitation settings,

school systems, hospitals and clinics) where individuals with disabilities apply for

120

and/or receive services. Also, populations that were not addressed in this study could
be examined (e.g., individuals who are blind).

“ﬁthin group differences need to be examined. While it is helpful to address
between group differences and to look at individuals as a group with speciﬁc needs,
this approach negates the importance of individual diﬂ‘erences, individual needs and
the importance of individually tailored interventions and services.

Further research needs to include more individuals with congenital disabilities.
This may be accomplished by conducting studies which include data collection at
schools, hospitals, disability speciﬁc organizations (e.g., United Cerebral Palsy
Association) and centers for independent living. Further, research should speciﬁcally
include more diverse disability groups for Aﬁican American males than the present
study which had an over-representation of substance abusers. Also given the
prevalence rate of alcoholism/substance abuse among this population it may be
warranted for future studies to examine the differences between these groups. Some
useful diﬂ'erences may be found by making the distinction between individuals who
abuse alcohol, illicit drugs or who are polydrug users. In addition, studies that focus
on similar types of disabilities (e.g., spina biﬁda, spinal cord injury) which examine
disability onset without the confounding variable of type of disability would help to
ﬁrrther clarify the relationship between disability onset, disability type and career self-
emcacy. Future research could also further examine the relationship between age,

disability onset and career self—efﬁcacy.

121

The unanticipated results from this study in terms of the eﬁ‘ects of race seem to
warrant further study. Given the limitations of the present study, it is unclear why
Aﬁican Americans consistently scored higher on measures of career self-eﬂicacy and
why Aﬁican American males had the highest level of career self-eﬁcacy.

Another limitation of the present study which could be addressed by further
research is the limited utility of the instruments with cognitively limited populations.
In terms of the OSES, a picture version for non-readers may be warranted. In terms
of the T808 S, the reading level of the instrument could be lowered.

To date research in the area of career self-eﬁcacy has been primarily -
descriptive and focused on examining statistical signiﬁcance of group diﬂ‘erences. It
appears that the time has come to move this line of research to the next level. Future
research needs to empirically examine sources of career self-emcacy, mediators of
career self-eﬁcacy, and the usefulness of interventions with the goal of increasing
career self-eﬁcacy. Additionally, qualitative research in this area would help in the
attainment of a new level of depth which has not been attained to date.

More speciﬁcally for individuals with disabilities, research on a variety of
intervention strategies is needed. Experimental designs could be employed to test the
utility of various approaches to increase career self-efﬁcacy for various populations.
The development of intervention strategies to increase career self-eﬂicacy should
include a built in research component. Future studies could examine the impact of

role models, career counseling geared towards increasing career self-efﬁcacy, and

122

other intervention strategies. After an intervention has been implemented, measures of
career self-efficacy should be repeated to test the effectiveness of the intervention.
9209111519135

Fundamentally, this study was designed to answer three questions regarding
the effects of gender, race and disability onset on career self-efﬁcacy. The ﬁndings
provide a foundation of knowledge upon which to build. In regards to the
instrumentation, the OSES and TSOSS appear to be useful assessment tools for
vocational and rehabilitation counselors working with individuals with disabilities.
They appear to provide consistent information that can be helpful in career counseling
with individuals with disabilities.

In addition, this study has answered some preliminary questions. As with the
studies conducted thus far with non-disabled populations, in the present study there
were consistent gender effects on career self-eﬂicacy. We now know that the patterns
of differences are very similar for individuals with disabilities as they are with non-
disabled individuals. Preliminary results also indicate that there are differences in
career self-efﬁcacy that can be attributed to disability onset. Racial differences were
also found, however they were not in the expected direction.

The study of the career self-efficacy of indivduals with disabilities is a vast
terrain, virtually unexplored. The present study is only a ﬁrst step towards increased
understanding. Given the similarities between the ﬁndings of the present study and
those conducted with non-disabled populations, perhaps this study will encourage

other researchers in this area to explicitly include individuals with disabilities in their

123

research. The end goal of increasing career self-efﬁcacy for all populations needs to
be paramount when developing interventions as well as when assessing differences.
Perhaps also the attention given in this study to both women and racial/ethnic
minorities will increase not only an awareness but a desire towards action in
developing gender and culturally appropriate strategies when working with these

populations.

APPENDIX A

 

 

.41;
1‘;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employment Services
for Persons with Disabilities

How Are Persons with Disabilities Assisted into Jobs?

The Michigan Jobs Commission (MJC) helps eligible persons prepare
for, find. and keep a job that matches their interests and abililles.
There are 35 MJC offices throughout the state available to 355151
employers with disability services.

Who Is Eligible?

A person is eligible for MJC services if he or she has a disability that
causes substantial problems in becoming employed and who needs
vocational rehabilitation services to prepare for, find. or keep a job.

What Are Eliglble Disabilities?

The MJC works with individuals with a wide range of disabilities.
Some examples are: amputation. brain injury. cancer, cerebral palsy.
deafness. diabetes. epilepsy. heart disease. kidney disease. leamlng
disability, mental illness. mental retardation. multiple sclerosis.
paraplegia, quadriplegia. substance abuse. and many others. Per-
sons who are legally blind are served by the Commission for the Blind
in the Michigan Department of Labor.

What Is the Flehabllltation Process?

Each MJC client is teamed with a rehabilitation counselor. Together.

they follow four steps in the rehabilitation process:

1. They assess the abilities and rehabilitation needs of the client and

explore job interests;

2. They choose the employment goal. services to be provided. and
service providers:

. The client receives the specific services s/he needs to become
employed: and

. The client and counselor work together to find a job—the final goal.
Once the client is on the job, the counselor follows up for at least 60
days to make sure both employer and employee are satisfied.

(a)

A

Who Pays for Services?

The MJC provides medical and vocational evaluations. counseling,
and job placement and follow-up services free of charge. Other
services. such as job training. are coordinated through public and
private agencies in the community. If financially able, clients are
expected to help pay for part of the services they receive.

How Is a Referral Made?

Any individual interested in receiving rehabilitation services may apply
directly by calling the nearest MJC rehabilitation services district
office. Referrals also may be made by a third party. For a listing of
the MJC district offices, call (517) 373-3391 or (517) 373-4035 (TTY).
10/95

124

APPENDIX B

     

Michigan Rehabilitation Services
Office Locations and Service Boundaries

 

    
        
    
    
 

Marquette

 
    
 

IAIOUIT‘I’I . '

  

cc NOOLCIA'T CHIP'E'A

 

 

anon-on

MACKIIAC

 

PIIIOUI IILI

 

 

uout- “run
[[00 IOIINCV
O
Gaylord Alpenf

 

 

// l
'h’averse City

BIA”
'l’lAVlloll IKALKAIIA CRAWFORD OICODA ALCONA

DOIIA' IOICO

 

 

 

III- nou-
IAUKII COIION

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

     

AION ’
. c?” . 5‘ " f 3:
oclAlA ‘ V ‘ ‘ , _ . ~.5_—1uunonf‘-'E-..
‘ é§\;fﬁ.~:
. Big "ESQ M‘ , 'TIIICO'LA'; IANILAC
4 . - Ba Cit
Rapids Pleasant .y ili! r.
gun-1»,- 5...... . 1:. Caro?
nusucou ,_ cut“ '3"? Saginaw ' "'
Muskegon ‘5' Grand :3“ ’- "mm" 5.9““ “n" new:
Rap1ds(::;; ; CLINTON , ‘ ‘+ [Flint Port.Huron
’w“ ‘ {:‘iw‘! ‘ .
Hollan 5‘“ ""' it: N'JE-‘O'pkl d ‘
‘ “ "L‘ ‘ unnv urou ”on“ mine- 92?. _g‘kap‘ 4 -: North
‘ ’ L "°" ' So .h -._'.- ' Macomb
uf. ' "'
.. Oakland _ . South
It“. cnnouu wuntuaw wun Macomb
~imul'tn‘tluu1u109 ,
4:333." «‘3'4 L‘zz‘ ‘A"‘L Battle .
Benton 55;! 5“ 1939.21.10? Creek Jackson Ann Arbor
Harbor CASS , "A a IIAICN _mLLcoALI unravel against;
42.25? x 31...... _zg, * ” ' '
Illllll $5135: Adman 5" Monroe

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

Michigan Rehabilitation Services
Fiscal Year 1993 Data

14.243 = Total Number Served

8,480 = 59.50% Males

5,763 = 40.50% Females

76.3% White
22.6% Black
0.6% Native American

0.5% Asian
2.6% Hispanic

Qifige
Flint (362)

(363)

(364)
Saginaw (3J1)
Caro (3J2)

Bay City (3M1)
(3M2)
Port Huron (3N2)
(3N3)
Clinton Vall (3P2)
Pontiac (3P3)
(3P4)
South Oakland (3R2)
(3R3)
(3R4)
Mt. Clemens (332)
(383)
Warren (3T1)
(3T2)
Region Totals
Eastern Area

Muskegon (5C1)
Holland (502)

OZoMalg

61.0
69.0
66.4
67.3
66.0
64.8
59.8
65.9
51.3
65.2
59.8
59.4
56.3
50.2
65.9
61.3
59.1
57.4
56.5

60.1

43.1
58.8

126

°ZoWhi1§

77.9
78.9
74.7
71.3
79.3
90.7
97.0
96.0
95.7
87.0
75.8
78.7
86.9
85.5
85.0
91.9
94.9
95.1
98.2

87.4

100.0

97.1

Total Served

195

71
146
171
285

54
266
302
304
207
194
286
252
311
167
310
215
183
285

4,203

109
417

Muskegon (503)
Alpena (501)
Gaylord (502)
Grand Rapids (5F1)
(5F2)
(5F4)
Marquette (562)
(563)
Traverse City (5H1)
(5H2)
Mt. Pleasant (5K1)
Big Rapids (5K2)
Region Totals
Northwestern Area

Adrian (682)
Jackson (683)

Lansing (602)
(603)
Kalamazoo (6E2)
(6E3)
Benton Harbor (6F1)
(6F2)
Battle Creek (6H1) ‘
(6H2)
Ann Arbor (6L1)
(6L2)

Monroe (6L3)

Ann Arbor (6L4)
Region Totals
Southern Area

Western Wayne (882)
(883)
Wyandotte (801)
(802)
Special Projects (801)
Detroit Schools (802)

Special Projects (803) 47.8

Detroit Eastern (8E1)

55.6
54.8
66.1
59.2
59.8
50.5
56.1
62.2
55.7
59.5
58.2
60.2

57.3

56.1
57.7
57.4
57.0
61.3
50.5
76.4
56.5
54.5
60.6
58.9
54.5
58.7
57.5

57.5

60.1
52.3
57.9
51.0

(only 1 case)

61.2

61.7

80.6
96.4

100.0

89.3
77.7
74.7
92.5
95.9
98.6
97.0
96.7
97.7

89.7

99.2 ‘

91.1
79.4
76.7
89.6
80.8
72.7
78.2
85.0
79.1
78.1
75.6
97.4
98.2

84.6

89.4
85.4
95.7
92.5

9.7
37.3
27.4

381
168
121
272
413
372
253
291
140
168
184
171

3,460

246
213
291
344
279
208

55
262
187
277

73
156
155
167

2,913

263
308
164
147

278
67
175

(8E2) 65.7
Detroit Central (8F2) 60.1
(8F3) 76.8
Redford (862) 55.2
(863) 58.5

Detroit Southwest
(8H1) 83.8
(8H2) 68.9

Region Totals
Wayne Area

62.7

128

14.7
16.2
13.3
72.6
84.9

11.8
15.4

44.2

265
328
593
212
212

229
402

3644

APPENDIX D

The Career Self-Efﬁcacy of Individuals with Disabilities
A Presentation to Michigan Jobs Commission, Rehabilitation Services
Senior Management Team
April 18, 1996

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine the career self-efﬁcacy of women
and men with disabilities in the state of Michigan as they enter the public rehabilitation
system. This study will be the ﬁrst of its kind in that it will examine the effects of
gender, minority status, and onset of disability on career self-efﬁcacy.

Career self-efﬁcacy is an individual’s belief in his or her capability to successﬁilly
complete tasks related to educational or vocational behavior. Career self-efﬁcacy
affects which vocations an individual will pursue and the amount of energy they will
expend to attain educational and vocational goals. Consistent gender differences have
been found in career self-efﬁcacy.

What the study involves:

1) I will attend a minimum of two group orientation meeting in each area to collect
data.

2) At the end of the group orientation I will ask individuals if they would be willling to
participate in my study.

3) Individuals will complete a demographic information survey which includes age,
race, gender, onset of disability, work history, and types of services sought.

4) The individual will also complete the Occupational Self-Efﬁcacy Scale, a measure
of occupational self-efﬁcacy and the Task Speciﬁc Occuaptional Self-Efﬁcacy Scale, a
measure of task speciﬁc self-eﬁicacy.

5) Participants will be paid $10.

This study was ﬁeld tested in the Ann Arbor district ofﬁce. The data collection takes
no more than 30 minutes total and involves no staff time. Client conﬁdentiality will be
strictly enforced, only I will have access to the individual results. All data will be
reported in aggregate form.

What is the timelinezMy proposal was accepted by my dissertation committee on
March 28. Application has been made to the University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS). Ideally data collection will begin the week of
May 6 and will be completed when 200 individuals have participated.

If you have any questions regarding this study, or are interested in a copy of
the results, please contact:
Manuela Kress, M.A., C.R.C.
Faculty Advisor: Michael J. Leahy, PhD.
(517) 355-1838

129

APPENDIX E

To:
Michigan Jobs Commission, Rehabilitation Services

Fax Number:

From: Manuela Kress
Michigan State University
Phone: 517-353-9443

Dear

I spoke with today and she suggested that I contact you
directly. As you may recall I am currrently working on a research
project with the Michigan Jobs Commission entitled “The Career
Self-Efficacy of Women with Disabilities.” l have been collecting
data in the Wayne and Southern areas and would like to begin data
collection in the Eastern area. I have attached some information
regarding my study that l distributed to the senior management team
at a meeting this spring.

I will be contacting you by phone in a few days to schedule a time
when I can come to one of your group orientation meetings. Thank

you in advance for your assistance. If you have any questions, please
contact me at the above number .

Sincerely,

Manuela Kress, M.A., C.R.C.
Doctoral Candidate

130

131
Fax Cover Sheet

To: Division Director
Fax:
Phone:

From: Manuela Kress
Fax: 517-353-6393
Phone: 517-353-9443 (W)

Mr. Stephens,

Attached please find a copy of the handout l distributed to the
Senior Management Team in April. I appreciate you sending this
information to your district managers. 1 plan to contact each of

them next week.
Thank you very much for your assistance.

Manuela Kress

APPENDIX F

Self-Eﬁicacy-Job Duties
Response Format 8

INSTRUCTIONS: For each occupation listed below, please indicate how much conﬁdence you
have that you could successﬁiily perform the jgb duties of the occupation if- you had the necessary
education and/or training.

 

 

YOUR CONFID_E_N CE
Occupation No conﬁdence Very little Some Much Complete
at all conﬁdence conﬁdence conﬁdence conﬁdence
1. Mathematician 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2. Probation/ O l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Parole Ofﬁcer
3. Dental Hygienist 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
4. Lawyer 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
5. Physician O l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
6. Social Worker 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
7. Drafter 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
8. X-Ray Technician 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
9. Physical Therapist 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10. Home Economist O i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ll. Engineer 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
12. Secretary 0 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
13. Art Teacher 0 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
14. Medical Technician 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
15. Elementary School 0 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Teacher
16. Travel Agent 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
l7. School Administrator 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
18. Sales Manager 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
19. Highway Patrol Ofﬁcer 0 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
20. Accountant 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

132

APPENDIX G

Activities Survey: Form S (90) c S.H. Osipow and R. Rooney, 1990.

DIRECTIONS: BELOW IS A LIST OF ACTIVITIES. INDICATE YOUR
CONFIDENCE IN YOUR ABILITY TO PERFORM EACH ACTIVITY BY
CIRCLIN G THE APPROPRIATE ANSWER NEXT TO EACH QUESTION
ACCORDING TO THE SCALE DEFINED BELOW:

A B C D E
NO ABSOLUTE

CONFIDENCE CERTAINTY
1. Gain the trust and confidence of people. A B C D
2. Apply mathematical and engineering properties to A B C D

problem solving.
3. Lift and carry items. A B C D
4. Memorize theatrical dialogue. A B C D
5. Work under pressure or extreme circumstances. A B C D
6. Use math to measure and estimate quantities. A B C D
7. Work outdoors. A B C D
8. Perceive three-dimensional forms. A B C D
9. Negotiate with people in different work situations. A B C D
10. Keep financial and production records and reports. A B C D
11. Use physical coordination to control equipment. A B C D
12. Render drawings, designs, and layout of items. A B C D
13. Speak convincingly. A B C D
14. Organize research logically. A B C D

134

F! F1 PI PI [1! H F! H F!

F!

[11

1 35
REMEMBER— A B C D E

NO ABSOLUTE
CONFIDENCE CERTAINTY
15. Tend various machines. C D
16. Draw sketches.
l7. Separate out work which does not meet standards.
18. Apply math skills to interpret reports.

19. Do active physical work.

20. Interpret theatrical roles.

21. Make decisions based on personal experiences.
22. Work to precise measurements.

23. Coordinate body motions skillfully.

24. Use my hands to draw, sculpt, or paint.

25. Be ﬁrm and courteous.

26. Think logically to analyze information quickly.
27. Move heavy objects. I

28. Direct performers in theatrical productions.

Fl [11 H Fl F! F1 F] F! F! [’1 Fl [1! [El P! F!

29. Make on the spot decisions in emergency situations.

['4

30. Use a personal computer.

31. Perform strenuous indoor and/or outdoor activities.
32. Arrange shapes, forms, and colors artistically.

33. Direct the work of others.

34. Operate data processing equipment.

> > > > > > > > T» > > > > > > > > 3* > > >
U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
G O O O O O 0 GO ('5 O O O G O O O O O O
U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U

35. Work in hazardous conditions

1 36
REMEMBER— A B C D E
N O ABSOLUTE
CONFIDENCE CERTAINTY
36. Know music, tonal qualities, symbols and scoring. C D E
37. Review work for accuracy.
38. Budget.
39. Keep physically fit.
40. Be familiar with colors and tones.
41. Write convincingly.
42. Interpret statistical information.
43. Be physically able to endure long periods of driving time.
44. Use brushes, pens, tools, etc., to follow designs.
45. Write accurately.
46. Know how to calculate dimensions.

.47. Be physically alert and active.

48. Produce attractive crafts.

H H H H H H H H H H H H H

49. Supervise others.

H

50. Operate calculating instruments.

H

51. Use an assortment of tools and equipment for various jobs.
52. Use creativity to enhance my appearance.

53. Organize assorted materials.

H H H

54. Apply logic to identify problems.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
0 G O O O O O G O G O O O O G O I") O O
U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U

H

55. Climb and balance on poles and ladders.

137

REMEMBER— A B C D E
NO ABSOLUTE
CONFIDENCE CERTAINTY
56. Know music theory. C D E
57. Make judgments on gathered information.
58. Keep records and reports.

59. Work in a noisy environment.

>> > > >
UU U U U
0000
U U U U
HH H H

60. Know about hair and skin care.

APPENDIX H

Demographic Information
1) Gender (circle): Female Male
2) Age (years):
3) Race/ethnicity:

a. CaucasianNVhite

b. African American/Black

c. Asian American/Paciﬁc Islander
d. Latino/Hispanic

6. Native American

f. Bicultural

g. Multicultural
h. Other

 

 

4) Marital Status

a. Single

b. Married
c. Divorced
d. Widowed
e. Other

5) Education (Please circle highest level attained)

a. Special education

6. Some high school

c. 6.E.D.

d. High school graduate
e. Some vocational/technical training

f. Vocational/technical school graduate
9. Some college

h. College graduate

i. More than college graduate

j. Other (Please explain)

 

6) Total years of paid work history

138

139

7) Work history (Most recent job ﬁrst)
Title of Job/Position Years on the job
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

8) Have you ever received services from Michigan Rehabilitation Services
before today?

a. Yes When did you receive the services?
What services did you receive?

 

b. No

9) What kind(s) of help would you like to receive from Michigan
Rehabilitation Services? (Please circle as many as you need)

a. Help ﬁnding a job
6. Help with getting further education

c. Help with getting a car/bus tokens

d. Special equipment (wheelchair, braces, computer)
e. Counseling

f. Child care

9. Other (Please explain)

 

10) Have you ever received any counseling, or help with finding a job from
any other person or agency?

a. Yes (Please explain)

 

 

b. No

140

11) What is your most severe disability that impedes your ability to work?

 

 

a. Learning disability i. Spinal cord injury

b. Head injury j. Heart disease

c. Alcoholism/Drug Abuse k. Amputation

d. Back Injury l. Visual impairment

e. Arthritis m. Hearing impairment/Deafness
f. Mental Illness n. Chronic Disease

9. Mental Retardation o. Other

h. Epilepsy

12) Were you born with this disability?
a. Yes (Skip #13)
b. No (Please go to #13)

13) How long have you had this disability?
a. Less than one year
b. 1-5 years
c. 6-10 years
d. 11-20 years
e. Over 20 years

14) What islare your other disabilities? (Please circle all)

 

 

a. Learning disability i. Spinal cord injury

6. Head injury ' j. Heart disease

c. Alcohol ism/Drug Abuse k. Amputation

d. Back Injury l. Visual impairment

e. Arthritis m. Hearing impairment/Deafness
f. Mental Illness n. Chronic disease

9. Mental Retardation o. Other

h. Epilepsy

15) How long have you had this/these disability(ies)?
a. Less than one year
b. 1-5 years
c. 6-10 years
CI. 11-20 years
e. Over 20 years

APPENDIX l

Consent Form

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You are under no
obligation to participate in this study and whether or not you participate will in no
way affect your ability to receive services from Michigan Jobs Commission,
rehabilitation services. You may leave at any time if you choose to do so. You
may not answer any question, if you choose not to.

You will be completing some information about your education and work
experience. Also you will be asked some questions about a variety of job tasks,
training and jobs. The information you provide is completely conﬁdential, your
name will not be put on any of the information and no one except for Manuela
Kress will see the results.

 

I agree to participate in this study. I understand that my name will not be used
anywhere or at any time and that the information I give will be held in strict
conﬁdence. I also understand that no information that could identify me will be
used at any time. I understand that I will be paid $10 upon completion of the
questionnaires.

Signed

 

If you have any questions regarding this research or are interested in the results
you can contact:

Manuela K. Kress, MA
(Faculty Advisor: Michael J. Leahy, Ph.D.)
214 Erickson Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
phone: 517-353-9443 ~
phone: 517-355-1838 (Dr. Leahy)

141

APPENDIX J

Thank you for your participation.

If you are willing to participate in a follow up study, please put your name
and a phone number where you can be reached below.

Name

Phone
Please check here if you are willing to release the results of your
instruments to your counselor to assist you and your counselor with

developing a vocational plan if or when you do become a client of
Michigan Jobs Commission, Michigan Rehabilitation Services.

142

APPENDIX K

November 4, 1996

Dear :

Thank you very much for assisting me with the completion of my study on the
career self-efficacy of individuals with disabilities. I very much appreciate
the time and effort you put into assisting me with getting participants for my

study.

Enclosed you will find the results of the questionnaires for those individuals
who participated in the study and indicated that they were willing to share the
results with their counselor. When I met with the MRS Senior Management
Team they requested that I report this information back to the district ofﬁces.

For each of the individuals I have included a one page summary of the results
and a copy of the release form the individual signed. Please pass the results on
to the counselor assigned to this individual. I hOpe this information will be
be helpful in developing a vocational plan.

If you or the counselor have any questions, please feel free to contact me at
517-355-1838.

Thank you again.

Sincerely,

Manuela K. Kress, MA, 080, LPC
Doctoral Candidate

Rehabilitation Counselor Education
Michigan State University

143

1 4 4
Ofﬁce

Applicant/Client
Date of Orientation

The above individual participated in a study on the career self-efﬁcacy of individuals with
disabilities. Career self-efficacy is an individual’s belief in his or her capability to
successfully complete tasks related to educational or vocational behavior. Career self-
eﬂicacy affects which vocations an individual will pursue and the amount of energy they
will expend to attain educational and vocational goals. There are 4 sources of self-
eﬁicacy: performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and
physiological states. The above individual completed two measures of career self-efﬁcacy,
the Occupational Self-Eﬂicacy Scale (OSES) and the Task-Speciﬁc Occupational Self-
Efﬁcacy Scale.

The Occupational Self-Efﬁcacy Scale consists of a list of 20 jobs, 10 traditionally female
(e.g., dental hygienist, secretary) and 10 traditionally male (e.g., engineer, draﬁer). The
individual is asked ﬁrst what their level of conﬁdence is in their abilility to complete the
job duties of these 20 jobs if they had the necessary education or training, they are then
asked to indicate their level of conﬁdence in their ability to complete the educational
requirements for the jobs. The task-speciﬁc occupational self-efﬁcacy scale 18 a 60 item
instrument which assesses an individual’ 3 conﬁdence in their ability to complete vocational
tasks in 4 factor areas: Verbal (e. g., speak convincingly, write accurately), Quantitative
(e.g., use calculating instruments, use math to measure and estimate quantities), Physical
(e.g., work outdoors, endure long periods of driving time), and Aesthetic (e.g., produce
attractive crafts, know about hair and skin care).

The scores were as follows:
Total Score on the Task-Speciﬁc Occupational Self-Efﬁcacy Scale
Factor 1 (Verbal and interpersonal)
F actor 2 (Quantitative, scientiﬁc, and business)
Factor 3 (Physical strength and agility)
Factor 4 (Aesthetic)

Total Score on the Occupational Self-Efﬁcacy Scale
Score on the Traditional Female Subscale
Score on the Traditional Male Subscale

Caution: The above results should be interpreted with caution. While this instrument has
been used numerous times with other populations, this is the ﬁrst study that used this
instrument with a population of individuals with disabilities. Therefore there are no norms
available at this time.

If you would like additional information regarding this study or career self-efficacy
you can reach Manuela Kress at 517—355—1838

APPENDIX L

MANOVA Results for Univariate F-test for Effect of Gender on TSOSS Factors

 

 

(1,161 (If)
Factor Hyp. SS Error SS Hyp. MS Error MS F Sig,
Verbal 979.579 25783.117 979.5796 160.1436 6.11688 .014"
Quant. 1758.145 31530.903 1758,1449 195.8441 8.97727 .002“
Physical 2825.688 30062.056 2825.6878 186.7208 15.13322 .000”
Aesthetic 448.216 25904.581 448.2162 160.8980 2.78572 .097
Note: *p<.05

MANOVA Results for Univariate F-test for Effect of Race on TSOSS Factors

 

 

(1,161 at)
Factor Hyp. SS Error SS Hyp. MS Error MS F Sig.
Verbal 1142.26 25783.118 1142.56 160.14 7.13462 .008“
Quant. 646.29 31530.903 646.24 195.84 3.29977 .071
Physical 2056.34 30062.056 2056.23 186.72 11.01293 .001“
Aesthetic 840.68 25904.581 840.68 160.90 5.22495 .024"'
Note: *p<.05

MANOVA Results for Univariate F -test for Effect of Disability Onset on TSOSS Factors

 

 

(1,161 df)
Factor Hyp. SS Error SS Hyp. MS Error MS F Sig,
Verbal 562.09 25783.117 562.09 160.14 3.50992 .063
Quant. 936.25 31530.903 936.25 195.84 4.7806 .030*
Physical 2.26 30062.056 2.26 186.72 .01211 .913
Aesthetic 20.81 25904.581 20.81 160.90 .12934 .720
Note: *p<.05

145

146

MANOVA Results for Univariate F-test for Effect of Gender on OSES Subscales

 

(1,161 dt)
Subscale Hyp. SS Error SS Hyp. MS Error MS F Sig,
Male 23 794.448 412093.10 25794.448 25 59.5845 10.07759 .002“

Female 1642.1806 387311.70 1642.181 2405.6627 .68263 .410

 

Note: *p<.05

MANOVA Results for Univariate F-test for Effect of Race on OSES Subscales

 

(1,161 dt)
Subscale Hyp. SS Error SS Hyp. MS Error MS F Sig,
Male 9951,3954 412093.10 9951,3954 2559,5845 3.88789 .050“

Female 8977.6711 387311.70 8977.671] 2405,6627 3.73189 .055

 

Note: *p<.05

MANOVA Results for Univariate F ~test for Effect of Disability Onset on OSES Subscales

 

(1,161 dt)
Subscgde Hyp. SS Error SS Hyp. MS Error MS F Sig,
Male 15178.247 412093.10 15178.247 2559.5845 5.92997 .016*

Female 16898.922 387311.70 16898.922 2405.6627 7.02464 009*

 

Note: *p<.05

REFERENCES

References
Alston, R. 1., & Mngadi, S. (1992). The interaction between disability status and

the African American experience: Implications for rehabilitation counseling. Journal of

Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 23(2), 12-16.

 

Altmaier, E. G., Russell, D. W., Kao, C. F ., Lehmann, T. R., & Weinstein, J. N.
(1993). Role of self-efﬁcacy in rehabilitation outcomes among chronic low back pain
patients. M] of Counseling Psychology, 40, 335-339.

American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disgrders (3rd ed., revised). Washington, DC: Author.

Asbury, C. A., Walker, 8., Maholmes, V., Green, L. E., & Belgrave, F. (1994).
Attitudinal and perceptual correlates of employment status among Aﬁ'ican Americans with
disabilities. .19ng gf Rehﬂilitatiog, 60(2), 28-32.

Asch, A., & Fine, M. (1988). Beyond pedestals. In M. Fine & A. Asch (Eds),

W m n wi h Di ili ies: Ess sin P ch 10 ultur and P litic (pp. 1-37).
Philadelphia: Temple University Press. I

Atkins, B. J. (1988). An asset-oriented approach to cross-cultural issues: Blacks in

rehabilitation. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Cgunseling, 19(4), 45-49.

Atkins, B. J ., & Wright, G. N. (1980). Vocational rehabilitation of Blacks. Journal

 

of Rehabilitation. 46(2), 42-46.
Axelson, J. A. (1993). Sociopolitical issues. In Counseling and Development in a

Midticulml Society (pp. 152-189). Paciﬁc Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

147

I48
Axelson, J. A. (1993). Work and career development. In Counseling and

Develgpmgnt in a Multicultural Society (pp. 224-268). Paciﬁc Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efﬁcacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psyghology Review. 84. 191—215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efﬁcacy mechanism in human agency. _A_m__gr_i_c_a_g

Psyghologist, 37(2), 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efﬁcacy theory.
Journal of Sgg'g and Clinical Psychglogy, 4(3), 359-373.

Beardmore, T. D. (1993). Rheumatic diseases. In M. G. Brodwin, F. Tellez, & S.
K. Brodwin (Eds), Medical, Psyghggciat, and Vggignal Aspects 91' Disability (pp. 353-
367). Athens, GA: Elliott & Fitzpatrick.

Betz, N. E. (1993). Issues in the use of ability and interest measures with women.
J rnal areer As essment 1(3), 217-232.

Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1987). The career psychology of women.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press. I

Betz, N. E, & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1995). Career assessment and intervention with
racial and ethnic minorities. In F. T. L. Leong (Ed), Career Development and Vocational
Behavior of Racial and Ethnic Minorities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efﬁcacy

expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. lggrnal of

Counseling Psychglogy, 28, 399-410.

I49
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1986). Applications of self-efﬁcacy theory to

understanding career choice behavior. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4,
279-289.

Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1993). Manual for the Occupational Self-881m
Scale. Columbus, OH: Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University.

 

Blustein, D. L. (1986). The role of goal instability and career self-eﬂicacy in the
career exploration process. oum f V cati Behavior 35 194-203.

Bores-Rangel, E., Church, A. T., Szendre, D., & Reeves, C. (1990). Self-efﬁcacy
in relation to occupational consideration and academic performance in high school
equivalency students. Jpprnal pt Cpunseling ngchology, 37(4), 407-418. I

Bowman, S. L. (1995). Career intervention strategies and assessment issues for
Aﬁican Americans. In F. T. L. Leong (Ed). Cgeer ngelppment app yggag'ptﬂ
Bemyior of Racial gﬂd Ethnic Minorities (pp. 137-164). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Brooks, N., & Deegan, M. J. (1981). Women and disability: The double handicap.
Journal pf Sociplpgy and Spcial Welfare, 8(2), 229-232.

Brown, M. T. (1995). The career development of African Americans: Theoretical
and empirical issues. In F. T. L. Leong (Ed), Career Development and Vocational
Behavior of Racial and Ethnic Minorities (pp. 7-36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

150
Brown, S. D., Lent, R. W., & Larkin, K. C. (1989). Self-efﬁcacy as a moderator of

scholastic aptitude-academic performance relationships. Jouroal of Vocational Bohavior,
3_5_, 64-75.

Campbell, R. E., & Cellini, J. V. (1981). A diagnostic taxomony of adult career
development problems. Joum of Vocatiwl Behovior- 19. 175-190.

Church, A. T., Teresa, J. S., Rosebrook, R., & Szendre, D. (1992). Self-eﬂicacy
for careers and occupational consideration in minority high school equivalency students.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39(4), 498-508.

Danek, M. M. (1992). The status of women with disabilities revisited. JooroaLot‘

Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 23(4), 7-13.
Danek, M. M., & Lawrence, R. E. (1985). Women in rehabilitation: An analysis of

state agency services to disabled women. Journal of Applioo Rehabiliation goonseling,
16(1), 16-18.

Darling, R. B. (1979). Families against sociegt: A study of reactions to children
with birth defects. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

DeLoach, C. P. (1989). Gender, career choice and occupational outcomes among
college alumni with disabilities. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling,_2_0(4),
8-12.

Dobren, A. A. (1994). An ecologically oriented conceptual model of vocational

rehabilitation of people with acquired midcareer disabilities. Rehabilitgation Counseling

 

Bulletin 37(3), 215-228.

151
Feist-Price, S., & Ford-Harris, D. (1994). Rehabilitation counseling: Issues speciﬁc

to providing services to African American clients. Jouanal of Rehailitatiorpﬂﬂ), 13-19.

Feist-Price, S., & Harley, D. A. (1996). Career counseling and development
strategies for African Americans with disabilities. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation
Counseling, 27(2), 23-29.

Fine, M., & Asch, A. (1981). Disabled women: Sexism without the pedestal.
Iowa! of Sociology and Sog'al Welfge, 8(2), 233-248.

Fisher, G. L., & Harrison, T. C. (1997). Sobstm abuse: Information for ghool

ooonselogs, sooial workers, thorapists, ago ooonglors, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Crites, J. O. (1980). Toward a career psychology of women:

What do we know? What do we need to know? Journal of Psyohology, 27(1), 44-62.

Forrest, L., & Brooks, L. (1993). Feminism and career assessment. losinaLof
Career Assessment, 1(3), 233-245.

Goldberg, R. T. (1992). Toward a model of vocational development of people
with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletio, 35(3), 161-173.

Greer, B. G. (1986). Substance abuse among people with disabilities: A problem of
too much accessibility. Joumal of Rehabilitation, 52(1), 34-38.

Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efﬁcacy approach to the career
development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 326-339.

Hackett, G., & Campbell, N. K. (1987). Task self-efﬁcacy and task interest as a
function of performance on a gender neutral task. Jougal of Vocationaljohavior, 30,

203-215.

152
Hackett, G., & Lonborg, S. D. (1993). Career assessment for women: Trends and

issues. Joumal of Career Assessment. 1(3), 197-216.

Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1987). Multivariate data
analysis: With readings (2nd ed.) New York: Macmillan, 153-181.

Hall, H. L., Rohaly, S. M., & Shneider, M. A. (1993). Multiple sclerosis. In M. G.
Brodwin, F. Tellez, & S. K. Brodwin (Eds), Medical, Esyohosocial, and Vooational
Asms of Disabilig (pp. 455-471). Athens, GA: Elliott & Fitzpatrick.

Hanna, W. J ., & Rogovsky, E. (1992). On the situation of African-American

women with disabilities. ,1me of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling 23(4), 3945.
Harris, R. M., & Hollingsworth, D. (1980). Locus of control and work limitations

of handicapped women. Journal of Applied Rohabilitation Counseling, 11(1), 40-43.

Harrison, D. K., & Wayne, B. (1986). Status characteristics in rehabilitation
accessibility: Gender inﬂuences. m f A li R habilitati n lin 17(4), 14-
18.

Harrison, D. K., & Wayne, B. (1987). Female and male acceptance for
rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitationo 53(2), 37-39.

Herbert, J. T., & Cheatham, H. E. (1988). Africentricity and the Black disability
experience: A theoretical orientation for rehabilitation counselors. Journal of Applied
Rehabilitation Counseling,_1_2(4), 50-54.

Hershenson, D. B., & Szymanski, E. M. (1992). Career development of people
with disabilities. In R. M. Parker & E. M. Szymanski (Eds), Rehabiﬁtation Counseling;

Basics and Beyond (2nd ed., pp. 273-303). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

153
Holcomb, L. P. (1984). Disabled women: A new issue in education. Journal of

Rehabilitation, Jan/Feb/Mar, 18-22.

Hollingsworth, D., & Harris, R. (1980). The labor force participation of
handicapped women: An empirical analysis. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counsoling,
J10), 99-103.

Holvey, J. M., Partridge, E. D., & Wagner, E. E. (1986). Sex differences in
vocational interests among rehabilitation clients. JoumaJ of Applioo Rohaoilitation
Counseling, 17(4), 51-53.

Hu, S. 8., & Cressy, J. M. (1993). Paraplegia and quadriplegia In M. G. Brodwin,
F. Tellez, & S. K. Brodwin (Eds), Medical, Psychomial, Ed yooational Aspects of
Disabilig (pp. 369-391). Athens, GA: Elliott & Fitzpatrick.

Jenkins, A E., Ayers, G. E., & Hunt, B. (1996). Cultural diversity and
rehabilitation: The road traveled. Rohabilitation Education, 10(2-3), 83-103.

Johnson, S. & Rubin, S. E. (1986). Prediction of starting weekly salaries of i
rehabilitated severely disabled women. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling,
11(4), 3941.

Johnson, W. G. & Larnbrinos, J. (1985). Wage discrimination against handicapped
men and women. JoumaJ of Human Resources. 2Q. 264-277.

Kerr, B. (1993). Career assessment for gifted girls and women. Journal of Career
Assessment. 1(3), 258-266.

Kriegsman, K. H., & Bregrnan, S. (1985). Women with disabilities at midlife.

Rehabilitation Counsoling Bulletin. Dec. 112-122.

 

154
Kriegsman, K. H., & Celotta, B. (1981). Creative coping: A program of group

counseling for women with physical disabilities. Joor_na1 of Rehabilitation,
July/AugoﬂSeptember, 36-39.

Kutza, E. A. (1981). Beneﬁts for the disabled: How beneﬁcial for women? 1%
of Sociology and Social WelfareJ.(2), 298-319.

Layton, P. L. (1984). Self-efﬁoaoy, loops of oontrol, oareer sﬂimco, app woman’s
oarsmhoioo, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social
cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice and performance. JoymaLof

Vmatjooal Bohavior, 45, 79-122.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-eﬁcacy

expectations to academic achievement and persistence. JoumaJ of Coonsoling Psyohology,
3_l, 356-362.

Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (1987). Career self-efﬁcacy: Empirical status and
ﬁiture directions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 347-3 82

Lesh, K., & Marshall, C. (1984). Rehabilitation: Focus on disabled women as a

special population. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseli_ng. 15(1), 18-21.

 

Lewis, J. A. (1992). The hardy woman: Health issues in adulthood. In J. Lewis, B.
Hayes, & L. Bradley (Eds), Counseling women over the lifespan_ (pp. 155-178). Denver:
Love.

Mager, R. F. (1992). No self-efﬁcacy, no performance. Training, 32-3 6.

155
McGrath, E., Keita, G. P., Strickland, B. R., & Russo, N. (1990). Women and

depression: Risk factors and treatment issues. Final roport of the American Psyohologioal
Association’s National Task Force on Womergnd Depression. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

Menz, F. E., Hansen, G., Smith, H., Brown, C., Ford, M., & McCrowey, G.
(1989). Gender equity in access, services and beneﬁts from vocational rehabilitation.
Jopmal of Rehabilitao'op, 55(1), 31-40.

Mitchell, L., Brodwin, M., & Benoit, R (1990). Strengthening the worker’s
compensation system by increasing client efﬁcacy. WWW
Cooosoling, 21, 22-26.

Morris, J. (1993). Feminism and disability. Fominisz Reviow, 43(Spring), 57-70.

Mudrick, N. R (1988). Disabled women and public policies for income support.
In M. Fine & A. Asch (Eds), Women with Disabilities; Essays in Psyohology, Qlﬂm Ed
Poﬁtios (pp. 245-268). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Myers, J. E., & Wedl, L. C. (1985). Women in rehabilitation: Publication Track
Records. Jouraal of Rehabilitation- Oct/Nov/Dec. 63-66.

Nagler, M. (1993). What it means to be disabled. In M. Nagler (Ed), Perspectives
on Disability (pp. 1-3) Palo Alto, CA.: Health Markets Research.

National Institute on Handicapped Research. (1983, January). Women and

rehabilitation. Rehab Brief VI (1), Washington, DC.

 

Navin, S. L., & Myers, J. E. (1983). A model of career development for disabled

adults. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 14 (2), 38-43.

156
Osipow, S. H., & Littlejohn, E. M. (1995). Toward a multicultural theory of career

development: Prospects and dilemmas. In F. T. L. Leong (Ed), Career Development and
Vooational Behavior of Racial and Ethnic Minorities (pp. 251-261). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Osipow, S. H., & Rooney, R. A. (1989). Tho Task Speciﬁc Scale of Qccupational
Self-Efﬁcagg. Columbus, OH: Author.

Osipow, S. H., Temple, R D., & Rooney, R A. (1993). The Short Form of the

Task Speciﬁc Occupational Self-Efﬁcacy Scale. Journal of Career Asgssment, 1, 13-20.

Pedhazur, E. 1., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). W
integzatg approach. (Student ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Perlman, L. G. (1982). Women & rehabilitation: Ideas from the sixth Mary E.
Switzer Seminar. Journal of Rehabilitatiop, Jan/Fob/March, 6-8.

Post-Kammer, P., & Smith, P. L. (1985). Sex diﬁ‘erences in career self-efﬁcacy,
consideration, and interests of eighth and ninth graders. JoumaJ of Coungling Psychology,
32, 551-559.

Post-Kammer, P., & Smith, PL. (1986). Sex differences in math and science
career self-efﬁcacy among disadvantaged students. Journal of Vocatio__n_al Behavior. 29.
89-101.

Post, P., Stewart, M. A., & Smith, P. L. (1991). Self-efﬁcacy, interest, and
consideration of math/science and non-math science occupations among Black freshmen.

Journal of Vocational Behavior. 38. 179-186.

157
Rooney, R. A., & Osipow, S. H. (1992). Task-speciﬁc occupational self-efﬁcacy

scale: The development and validation of a prototype. Journal of Vocational Behavior

 

1Q, 14-32.

Rubin, S. E., & Roessler, R. T. (1995). Foundations of the Vocational

 

Rehabilitation Process (4th ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Russell, J. E. A., & Eby, L. T. (1993). Career assessment strategies for women in
management. Journal of Camr Assessmont, 1 (3), 267-293.

Scheaffer, R. L., Mendenhall, W., & Ott, R. L. (1996). Elmentm sprvey
samang (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Sheppard, C., Bunton, J., Menifee, S., & Rocha, G. (1995). Rehabilitation service
providers: A minority perspective. Joumﬂ of Applioo Rehabila' ation Coooseling, 26 (2),
36-40.

Slappo, J ., & Katz, L. J. (1989). A survey of women with disabilities in
nontraditional careers. JournaJ of Rehabilitation, (Jan/Feb/Mar), 23 -30.

Strausser, D. R. (1995). Rehabilitation counseling applications of self-efﬁcacy
theory in rehabilitation counseling. Journal of Rehabilitation. 61. 7-11.

Strickland, B. R. (1988). Sex related differences in health and illness. Psychology
of Women Quarterly. 12. 381-399.

Super, D. E. (1957). The psyphologvﬁof careers. New York: Harper Row.

158
Szymanski, E. M., Hershenson, D. B., Ettinger, J ., & Enright, M. (1996).

Career development theories, constructs, research, and interventions: Implications for
people with disabilities. In E. M. Szymanski & R. M. Parker (Eds), Worl_c__and Disability:

Issues md Strategios in Career Counseling and Job Placement. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Tate, D. (1982). Women and international rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation,

_A_pril/May/June,(16-18), 67-69.
Taylor, K. M., & Betz, N. E. (1983). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the

 

understanding and treatment of career indecision. Journal of Vgﬁatiopd Bemor, 22, 63-
81.

Temple, a 1)., & Osipow, s. H. (1994). The relationship between task-speciﬁc
self-efﬁcacy egalitarianism and career indecision for females. W
Assassment, 2(1), 82-90.

Thurer, S. L. (1982). Women and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Literatoro,
13(7-8), 194-197.

United States General Accounting Ofﬁce. (1993). Vocational rehabilitation:
Evidence for federal progtam’s effectiveness is mixed. Washington, DC: Author.

Vash, C. L. (1981). The psychology of disabilig. New York: Springer.

Ward, C. M., & Bingharn, R. P. (1993). Career assessment of ethnic minority
women. Journal of Career Asse_ss_ment. l (3), 246-257.

Watson, A. L. (1988). Importance of cross-cultural counseling in rehabilitation

counseling curricula. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 19 (4), 55-61.

159
Watson, A. L. (1990). African Americans and alcohol abuse: Considerations for

rehabilitation counselors. Journal of Applied Rohabilitation Counseling. 2] (3), 55-58.
Weinberg, N. (1976). The effect of physical disability on self-perception.

Rehabilitation Counsoling Bulletip, Soptember, 15-20.

Weller, C., & Sipherd, C. (1982). The learning disabled woman: Implications for
the work force. Jougpal of Rehabilitatioa. (Cct/Nov/Dec), pp. 67-69, 80.

Wheaton, J. E. (1995). Vocational rehabilitation acceptance rates for European
Americans and Aﬁican Americans: Another look. Rohabilitation Counseling Balletin,
3§(3), 224-231.

Whiston, S. C. (1993). Self-efﬁcacy of women in traditional and non-traditional

occupations: Differences in working with people and things. 0 f areer

Dﬂelopment, 19, 175-186.

Williams, T. (1993). The relationship betwgn eager self-ofﬁcaoy apo oeggoo of
W. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, The

Ohio State University, Columbus.
“filliams, T., & Betz, N. (1994). The relationships among occupational and task-

speciﬁc measures of career self-efﬁcacy. Journal of Career Assessment 2(4), 341-351.

 

Wright, G. (1980). Total rehabilitaﬁon. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Wright, T. J. (1988). Enhancing the professional preparation of rehabilitation

counselors for improved services to ethnic minorities with disabilities. Joomal of Applied

Rehabilitation Counseling, 19(4), 4-10.

160
Wulz, S. V. (1993). Acquired traumatic brain injury. In M. G. Brodwin, F. Tellez,

& S. K. Brodwin (Eds), Magical, Psychosocial and Vocational Aspects of Disabilig (pp.
473-490). Athens, GA: Elliott & Fitzpatrick.

Zilber, S. M. (1988). The effects of sort, task performance, and attributiopal styles
on task and career self-eﬁicag expectations, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio
State University, Columbus.

Zunker, V. G. (1994). Career counsoling; Appliod concapts of life playing, (4th
ed.). Paciﬁc Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

 

IT- -