Using profile elevation to increase the usefulness of the Self-Directed Search and other inventories.

The authors explore the construct of profile elevation on interest inventories results. They speak to the need for career counselors to maximize their use of the interest inventory and how they can do that by properly interpreting profile elevation. Profile elevation is defined, and correlates of high and low profile elevation are presented. The common interpretive interaction that occurs between profile elevation and differentiation is explored. The authors also present a case of low profile elevation and the career counseling interventions and considerations used with the client.

**********

Exploring ways in which the Self-Directed Search (SDS; Holland, 1994) and other interest inventories can be used to the fullest potential in career counseling is the purpose of this article. We focus on the SDS as a way to illustrate this point, especially the notion of profile elevation.

Typical (and minimal) use of the SDS involves drawing on the three-letter summary code to help the client search for matching occupations or fields of study. However, Reardon and Lenz (1998, 1999) and Holland (1997) have shown how the secondary constructs in Holland's theory, such as (a) congruence, (b) consistency, (c) differentiation, (d) coherence, and (e) commonness, can provide some additional information regarding a client's career decision-making process.

In practice, these constructs are typically determined in the following ways. Congruence is determined by examining the level of agreement between expressed interests as seen in the SDS Daydreams section and assessed interests as seen in the SDS summary scores. Consistency is determined by examining the relationship between the first two letters in the summary code on the RIASEC (i.e., R = Realistic, I = Investigative, A = Artistic, S = Social, E = Enterprising, C = Conventional) hexagon, for example, adjacent (SE), alternate (SC), or opposite (SR). Differentiation of SDS summary scores is determined by examining the difference between the highest and the lowest scores, and coherence of aspirations is determined by examining the Daydreams occupations to see if the same RIASEC letter appears first in the first three occupational codes. Commonness of the SDS code is determined by looking at the percentage of persons in the normative group having that three-letter code (Holland, 1997).

What can be learned from these secondary constructs on the SDS? High levels of congruence between the codes of aspirations and the SDS summary code indicate future persistence related to the code of the first aspiration. It has been suggested that high consistency is positively correlated with more stability in work history and the direction of career preferences or work histories (Reardon & Lenz, 1998, 1999). High differentiation is related to the person's exhibition of characteristics attributed to one or more of the six RIASEC types (persons with highly differentiated profiles are more predictable with respect to their interests), and high coherence may indicate future persistence in occupations with the same first-letter code as that of the first aspiration. Finally, common SDS codes are associated with stability of career choices. Commonness can provide the client and the counselor with an idea of how typical it is for a person of his or her age, gender, and education to have his or her code. The opposite levels of these indicators would indicate opposite career decision-making conditions for the client (Reardon & Lenz, 1998, 1999).

The uniqueness of the constructs of coherence and congruence is important to examine. Both constructs indicate similarity among codes. Because coherence is directed at the similarity among aspiration codes, it gives information regarding a client's work preferences. If a client has low coherence, the counselor and client can work together to understand why the client has such varied preferences in occupations. Congruence focuses on the similarity between the expressed and the assessed codes. If a client has low congruence, a counselor can talk to the client about the disconnect between the occupations the client is considering and the interests and skills indicated by the client's answers to the assessed portion of the SDS (activities, competencies, occupations, self-estimates).

We view the SDS as a simulated career decision-making activity as well as an assessment or test. From this perspective, exploring the meaning of the secondary constructs becomes a way to analyze how a client may engage in actual career decision making. In addition, the SDS is unique in the way that the client can see all aspects of the SDS and how his or her score or code is determined. The process of analyzing the SDS as a simulated career decision-making activity together with the exploration of the meaning of the secondary constructs provides a way for counselors to collaborate with clients in career counseling.

In this article, we introduce the construct of profile elevation, the sum of the six RIASEC scores across the five sections of the SDS, as another indicator of the client's career decision-making situation (Fuller, Holland, & Johnston, 1999). A client's profile elevation on the SDS provides information that may not be uncovered otherwise through the interpretation of other aspects of the SDS (e.g., the code, the aspirations, congruence, consistency, differentiation, coherence, commonness). A client's profile elevation may provide a counselor with additional information concerning the client's personality, preferences, tendencies, and needs that can be explored in counseling. The elaboration of this idea is the focus of the following sections of this article.

Profile Elevation

Researchers have speculated that profile elevation is related to personality factors. For example, Spokane, Luchetta, and Richwine (2002) noted, "The possibility of a relationship between depression and profile elevation has been discussed for years" (p. 402). In addition, G. D. Gottfredson and Jones (1993) indicated that the idea of profile elevation has been subsumed under the umbrella concept of professional judgment of a counselor when interpreting the SDS profile of a client. Counselors have reported interpreting profile elevation to determine whether a client was depressed or overzealous. G. D. Gottfredson and Jones indicated that counselors have been making such interpretations based on an intuitive understanding rather than on a research-validated understanding.

G. D. Gottfredson and Jones (1993) examined profile elevation of the Vocational Preference Inventory (Holland, 1985) and of the SDS with a sample of middle school students, high school students, navy recruits, and bank tellers. They concluded that high profile elevation reflects an expressive, enthusiastic, or impulsive general style and that low profile elevation reflects the opposite. Swanson and Hansen (1986) summarized the importance of the Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory (SCII) profile elevation based on the following conclusions of their research: (a) high, undifferentiated profiles resembled consistent profiles more so than did low undifferentiated profiles; (b) profile elevation is positively correlated with effective educational functioning and achievement (e.g., higher grades, likelihood to stay in college); and (c) the SCII is more predictive of college majors for high profile individuals than for low profile individuals.

Fuller et al. (1999) studied a sample of over 300 dislocated workers in Missouri from 1991 to 1995 to determine if personality differences existed between those with high and those with low profile elevations on the SDS. The results of the study showed a relationship between profile elevation and openness to experience, extraversion, and lower depressive personality traits. For instance, a client with significantly high profile elevation would be more willing to consider options presented to him or her, be more open and willing to collaborate in discussions of options, and be less likely to exhibit signs of depression. These inclinations would be likely to create a more conductive environment for career counseling.

Darcy and Tracey (2003) examined the areas of interest and ability as they relate to career development and spoke of a general factor in vocational assessment on which profile elevation has a clear impact. They proposed viewing this general factor of interest in the same manner as Spearman's concept of "g" in intelligence. In intelligence theory, "g" represents the general factor of intelligence. Many scholars agree that intelligence may be multifaceted, but they still adhere to the general theory of intelligence (Sattler, 2001). Darcy and Tracey suggested that interest may also possess an overarching factor that indicates general interest as measured by the profile elevation of an interest inventory.

Finally, Prediger (1998) conducted an expansive study (N = 53,429) to investigate profile elevation. Taking a slightly different view of profile elevation, Prediger's findings indicated that there is no relationship between profile level and interest. In other words, a person with a high profile elevation and a high point code of E on the SDS would not have a greater likelihood of entering an E occupation than a person with a low profile elevation and a high point code of E on the SDS.

Profile Elevation and Differentiation

The concepts of profile elevation and differentiation are similar but not identical. Profile elevation is the sum of the six section scores on the SDS (Fuller et al., 1999), whereas differentiation is the level of definition or distinctness of a profile (Holland, 1997). Differentiation can be defined as the difference between a client's highest and lowest summary scale score on the SDS. In practice, a counselor may see only good signs in a client's SDS score and yet the client may still be unable to move forward in career decision making. The scores on differentiation, consistency, congruence, and coherence may all be high and positive. Yet a closer look reveals that the profile elevation is low. The growing research on profile elevation could provide a counselor with the means to look to the interpretability of a client's low profile elevation for some possible answers about this client's inability to move forward in decision making. As current research indicates, the client's depressive traits or tendency to prematurely eliminate options, indicated by a low profile elevation, may be factors influencing his or her career decision making (Fuller et al., 1999).

In a study of the "custom of treating all undifferentiated subjects as if they were equal" (p. 163), Swanson and Hansen (1986) emphasized the importance of not grouping into the same category those with low and undifferentiated SCII profiles and those with high and undifferentiated SCII profiles. The authors held that it was important to consider separately the profile elevation, whether high or low, when interpreting the results of the client's SCII.

The important interpretive differences between differentiation and profile elevation are illustrated in Figure 1. The graph plots three different SDS profiles. All three profiles have a high point code of SEA. Both the low profile elevation and the low differentiation profile (diamond) and the low profile elevation and the high differentiation profile (square) have a profile elevation of 67, whereas the high profile elevation and the low differentiation profile (triangle) has a profile elevation of 212. The graph shows that profile elevation level can be the same for both a differentiated and an undifferentiated profile. In addition, low profile elevation is not synonymous with low differentiation, and high profile elevation is not synonymous with a multipotential individual, a person with abundant talents, interests, and options (Reardon & Lenz, 1998, 1999), because the profile elevation may be high but the profile may not be undifferentiated or flat.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

High and Low Profile Elevation

It is important to know the difference between low and high profile elevation. Using national norms from The Self-Directed Search Technical Manual (Holland, Fritzsche, & Powell, 1994) and calculating 1 SD above and below the average range, high and low profile elevations are shown as follows: high profile elevations (men, 150 >; women, 147 >), average range (men, 129-149; women, 128-146), and low profile elevations (men, < 128; women, < 127).

However, the development of local norms is a common suggestion for practitioners in using test results (Zunker & Osborn, 2002). With this in mind, the first author (Bullock), drawing on practical experience with over 250 clients and students, has developed another set of profile ranges for use in her counseling practice. These norms, which have not been empirically substantiated, are more conservative in application and allow for wider deviation from the mean profile elevation score in determining high and low profile elevations. They are as follows: high profile elevation, 200 >; average range, 81-199; and low profile elevation, < 80.

When working with clients, counselors can consider what range the profile elevation falls into (high, average, low) and then think of the correlates related to that range that have been found in the literature (e.g., Fuller et al., 1999; G. D. Gottfredson & Jones, 1993; Swanson & Hansen, 1986). High profile elevation has been found to be moderately related to positive personality variables and effective educational functioning and achievement; it was found to be more predictive of college major and an expressive, enthusiastic, or impulsive style. In short, persons with a high profile elevation are likely to have a pleasant and optimistic disposition. They are likely to be expressive with their thoughts, needs, and preferences. When working with a client with a high profile elevation, counselors should also look for a tendency toward an impulsive decision-making style (G. D. Gottfredson & Jones, 1993). To assess this tendency in their clients, counselors may ask questions related to how the clients are approaching the choice of a major or a new job and how often the clients have changed majors or jobs. If the counselor sees a resume with a long list of different jobs that a client has held during a short period of time, it may be an indication that this high profile elevation client is impulsive in the way he or she makes decisions. This could be explored in counseling.

Low profile elevation has been found to be moderately correlated with depressive traits; unsociability; unconventionality; lack of willingness to consider occupations not previously considered; and an unexpressive, unenthusiastic, or unimpulsive style. The correlates of a low profile elevation paint a very different picture of a person than do the correlates of a high profile elevation. Such a person may be dealing with depression and may not be willing to express all of his or her needs, thoughts, and preferences. The possibility that a client with a low profile elevation may not be willing to consider new occupations has important implications for career counselors.

The case presented in the next section deals with a person who demonstrated many of the correlates of a low profile elevation. How the career counselor intervened with this individual is also discussed. Cara's profile elevation did not provide all of the information that the career counselor needed to work with her effectively, but it did provide additional, important information that aided in a more effective counseling relationship with Cara. Cara's SDS profile is presented, and each aspect of that profile is discussed in the order in which it is presented.

The Case of Cara Salters

When she first sought career counseling, Cara was a 24-year-old, Caucasian college senior. She was referred to counseling by her career development course instructor. Some of the information from Cara's SDS results is presented below. Cara's secondary construct scores were determined to be low or high if they were 1 SD or more below or above the mean (Holland et al., 1994).

  SDS summary scores: R, 9; I, 6; A, 8; S, 16; E, 16; C, 18
  Summary code: CES
  Aspiration summary code: SIR
  Aspirations: consultant, athletic trainer, physical therapist, career
    counselor, and psychiatrist
  Profile elevation: 73 (low)
  Differentiation: low
  Congruence: low
  Coherence: low
  Consistency: high

In addition to indicating her vocational interests, this information about Cara gave the career counselor a heads-up about some possible personality characteristics that she may see in her. The counselor looked for any symptoms of depression demonstrated by Cara. Cara did report poor sleeping and eating habits that began after a relationship had ended for her and financial problems began for her parents. She was also very upset about her assignment in her career development course to write a paper on three occupations she was considering. She had no idea where to start and felt that she hated everything. The counselor may not have been as likely to ask Cara about these issues had the counselor not noted the low profile elevation.

Taking into account that Cara might not have been willing to explore occupations that she had not previously considered, the career counselor began with Cara's occupational daydreams or aspirations. Cara and her career counselor explored these five options first. Cara became comfortable with researching these occupations through career center resources. When Cara brought information she found on two of the occupations to her counselor, the counselor introduced the idea of considering new options to Cara by looking at occupations related to Cara's two aspirations. This helped Cara to move gradually into the world of career information and expanded options.

Cara had a low differentiation score on her SDS. Because Cara's career counselor knew that her profile elevation was also low, the career counselor did not make the automatic assumption that Cara was a multipotential client. Given the combination of profile elevation and differentiation scores, it was more likely that Cara believed she liked and was good at very little. The counselor explored this matter directly with Cara.

Cara had a low congruence score. Because Cara's expressed and assessed interests were not particularly similar, the counselor began a discussion related to what Cara knew about the occupations she indicated as her aspirations. It was determined that Cara did not have extensive occupational knowledge. As mentioned, Cara and her counselor worked to gather to gather informational resources relevant to Cara's interests. This helped Cara move toward closing the gap between her expressed and assessed interests.

Cara's coherence score was low. This led to a discussion about what it was about each aspiration that was interesting to Cara. The counselor learned that the aspirations of career counselor and psychiatrist had been childhood interests but were no longer areas that Cara was considering. She also learned that Cara was most interested in being a consultant or a physical therapist in the sports field. Cara and the counselor discussed how this made the aspirations of sports consultant, athletic trainer, and physical therapist more highly related occupations. This change in perspective may raise Cara's coherence score and be a much more positive indicator regarding her likelihood to persist in the occupation of her choice.

Cara's high consistency score was a positive indication on her profile, and the counselor used this as a way to reinforce Cara's confidence in her career development process. The counselor told Cara that this score often predicts stability in a person's work history and preference for career direction.

Cara's high point code indicated that she was a Conventional type. With a few quick questions, the career counselor discovered that Cara had no interest in the Conventional area but did have many experiences in that area. Many career counselors know that it is a common occurrence for the Conventional type to show up in the SDS code of a client who has had extensive experience in clerical or office work but has no wish to continue in that area of work (L. S. Gottfredson, 2002; Reardon & Lenz, 1998). Therefore, it is always good to inquire about a client's interest in the Conventional area when it is in his or her code. It would probably have been a mistake for the career counselor to bombard Cara with a list of C jobs for her to consider. The same issue is frequently true of men with high point codes of R.

Cara's career counselor also referred her to mental health counseling at the student counseling center at her university. Cara seemed appreciative of her career counselor's acknowledgment of some of the difficult issues Cara was dealing with. As Cara's mental health counseling progressed, the career counselor began to see a changes both in Cara's ability to deal with frustrating situations and in her overall mood.

The career counselor continued with a slow and deliberate approach with Cara throughout the time they worked together in the career center. The career counselor continually considered some of Cara's tendencies that had been indicated by her profile elevation. Again, Cara's profile elevation did not provide all of the information that the career counselor needed to work with Cara effectively, but it did provide additional, important information that aided in a more effective counseling relationship with Cara. Eventually, Cara was able to identify a major that was pleasing to her and that was based on her values, interests, and skills. Cara came to believe that being happy with her major and associated occupational choices was more important than graduating during her planned semester. Cara chose to change her major and remain at her university a year longer to complete her degree.

Conclusion

By defining profile elevation, reviewing relevant literature, and exploring the case of a client with a low profile elevation, we have provided counselors with the means to be better informed about how this aspect of interests obtained from an inventory like the SDS can be used in counseling. Darcy and Tracey (2003) identified a need for expansion of the profile elevation literature as it relates to the RIASEC types. These authors indicated that a more in-depth study of profile elevation might reveal whether it is related to the general interest factor. They stated that profile elevation may "bias the relations with other variables or be related to other variables in a substantive manner" (Darcy & Tracey, 2003, p. 227). We believe that this general factor measured by profile elevation may reveal the client's energy level. In other words, profile elevation may indicate the level of energy a person has to give to the career decision-making process. This is an area that deserves further exploration in practice and research.

This article has presented evidence of the correlates of a high and a low profile elevation. Interpreting a client's profile elevation using an interest inventory such as the SDS can provide the counselor with information that might otherwise have taken the counselor much longer to discover, perhaps even requiring the administration of another test. Interpretation of profile elevation early in the counseling process helps the counselor to avoid taking a direction with the client that may not be helpful or well received. In short, profile elevation is a construct that should be examined because it provides information that can inform the career counseling process and maximize the resources used by counselors.

References

Darcy, M., & Tracey, T. J. G. (2003). Integrating abilities and interest in career choice: Maximal versus typical assessment. Journal of Career Assessment, 11, 219-237.

Fuller, B. E., Holland, J. L., & Johnston, J. A. (1999). The relation of profile elevation in the Self-Directed Search to personality variables. Journal of Career Assessment, 7, 111-123.

Gottfredson, G. D., & Jones, E. M. (1993). Psychological meaning of profile elevation in the Vocational Preference Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 1, 35-49.

Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Gottfredson's theory of circumscription, compromise, and self-creation. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 85-148). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Holland, J. L. (1985). Manual for the Vocational Preference Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Holland, J. L. (1994). The Self-Directed Search. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Holland, J. L., Fritzsche, B. A., & Powell, A. B. (1994). The Self-Directed Search technical manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Prediger, D. J. (1998). Is interest profile level relevant to career counseling? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 204-211.

Reardon, R., & Lenz, J. (1998). The Self-Directed Search and related Holland career materials: A practitioner's guide. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Reardon, R., & Lenz, J. (1999). Holland's theory and career assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 102-113.

Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th ed.). La Mesa, CA: Author.

Spokane, A. R., Luchetta, E. J., & Richwine, M. H. (2002). Holland's theory of personalities in work environments. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 373-426). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Swanson, J. L., & Hansen, J. C. (1986). A clarification of Holland's construct of differentiation: The importance of score elevation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28, 163-173.

Zunker, V. G., & Osborn, D. S. (2002). Using assessment results for career development (6th ed.) Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Emily E. Bullock and Robert C. Reardon, Career Center, The Florida State University, Tallahassee. Emily E. Bullock is now a predoctoral intern at Mississippi State Hospital, Brandon. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Emily E. Bullock, 48104 Queen Mary Ct., Brandon, MS 39042 (e-mail: [e-mail]).