Client anticipations about computer-assisted career guidance system outcomes.
Computer-assisted career guidance (CACG) systems can be used to help solve career problems, and their use has resulted in improved self-awareness (Peterson, Ryan-Jones, Sampson, Reardon, & Shahnasarian, 1994), knowledge of information resources (Cairo, 1983; Peterson et al., 1994), and decision-making skills (Peterson et al., 1994; Sampson, 1996). Despite these outcomes, limited information has been reported regarding clients' anticipations about the ways in which CACGs might be used in their efforts to solve career problems. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary(1998) defined anticipation as "the visualization of a future event or state" (p. 77). For the purpose of this study, anticipation is defined as the belief in the possible occurrence of some event. This statement represents a modified version of Galassi, Crace, Martin, James, and Wallace's (1992) question to clients for the purpose of measuring anticipations, "What do you think you will be required to do in session?" as opposed to a question measuri ng clients' preferences, "What would you like to do in session?"
Client anticipations are important variables to understand (Galassi, Grace, Martin, & James, 1992; Galassi, Grace, Martin, James, & Wallace, 1992). If career counselors know what potential users are looking for, they can prescribe an initial career exploration experience that is in line with those anticipations. Anticipations that are based on clients' faulty assumptions that have a low probability of occurrence can be addressed, whereas those that have a greater probability of being accomplished within the career counseling process can be incorporated immediately into the formulation of career interventions. For example, if a client states a belief that the computer will identify the perfect career choice, the faulty thinking behind this assumption can be addressed. If, however, the goal is to increase career options under consideration, that particular desire can be listed as an outcome of or reason for using a CACG system. Thus, having "a more specific understanding of client perceptions will provide a bet ter foundation for developing counselor intervention strategies for CACG systems" (Sampson et al., 1992, p. 76).
In practice, career counselors can combine knowledge of how clients anticipate using CACG systems with the knowledge of system capabilities and limitations. This synthesis of information can serve to identify clients who might benefit from the use of CACG systems, because their outcome preferences for the use of CACG systems match with the capabilities of the systems. For example, if clients indicate that they would like to use a computer to identify possible college majors based on their interests, career counselors could suggest the following sequence for their interaction with the CACGs: self-assessment, search for occupations, and information about occupations (which generally includes related college majors or fields of study). Cognitive information processing theory (CIP; Florida State University Tech Center, 2003, [paragraph] Key Elements; Peterson, Sampson, & Reardon, 1991; Peterson, Sampson, Reardon, & Lenz, 1996; Sampson, Lenz, Reardon, & Peterson, 1999; Sampson, Peterson, Reardon, & Lenz, 2000) pro vides a straightforward description of four domains involved in career choice and problem solving (self-knowledge, knowledge about options, decision making, and executive processing), as well as a general five-step decision-making approach based on communication, analysis, synthesis, valuing, and execution (CASVE) within the decision-making domain. CIP theory has been related to the functions of CACGs by Sampson, Peterson, and Reardon (1989). These researchers specifically identified the following roles of CACG as matching the four domains of information processing and the steps outlined in their decision-making approach: orientation and needs assessment, self-assessment, alternative generation, information dissemination, decision-making instruction, and implementation of a choice.
Given that there have been no studies to date on client anticipations about CACGs, it is appropriate to first provide a comprehensive examination of client anticipations about career counseling in general. Although research is also limited on anticipations about career counseling, specific areas that have been investigated address the length/duration of career counseling, anticipations about the career counseling environment, specific changes that might occur, and the relationship between client anticipations and preferences. For example, three sessions seems to be the average length of time clients anticipate for career counseling (Galassi, Crace, Martin, James, & Wallace, 1992; June & Smith, 1983), with clients preferring counseling environments that are congruent with their primary Holland type (Niles, 1993) and with a large proportion preferring an "Enterprising" type of career counseling environment. Young (1985) found that 7 out of 16 clients anticipated that as a result of career counseling their feeli ngs about self would change, 7 anticipated a change in the way they formulated goals, and 2 anticipated behavioral changes. Two case studies revealed client anticipations for help in "structuring the career decision-making process" (Metzger, Sampson, & Reardon, l986, p. 1.), with one stating that she "wanted someone to accept responsibility and make a career decision for me" (p. 13). Thus, preliminary studies have found that career counseling clients have preferences for session length, client and counselor roles, and potential outcomes.
Galassi, Crace, Martin, James, and Wallace (1992) investigated the extent to which client preferences and actual anticipations about career counseling were congruent. They found that out of 92 clients, 42% preferred and 33% anticipated gaining career or college major direction as the main goal of counseling. In addition, during counseling sessions, clients preferred to talk about specific careers and/or decision making (31%), exploring careers in general (26%), or exploring self (26%). Their anticipations differed from their preferences in that they thought the sessions would focus on exploring self (46%) and taking tests (32%). Outcome preferences for testing included occupation/person matching (48%), narrowing or broadening options (15%), identifying strengths and weaknesses (14%), and identifying interests (12%).
The appropriateness of client anticipations about how CACGs might be used in career problem solving should be examined in light of the actual capability of the CACG systems. Sampson (1996) summarized CACG outcome research in five areas: improved generation of occupational alternatives, occupational knowledge, career certainty, vocational maturity, and positive user perceptions of computer use. On the basis of these findings, appropriate client anticipations about how CACGs might be used in career problem solving include to generate options, to enhance self-knowledge, to provide information about the world of work and specific occupations, to increase confidence and capability in decision-making skills, as well as to enhance awareness of resources and increase career certainty. However, little is known about clients' anticipations about the use of CACGs in career exploration. We believe this is important information to obtain in order to enhance the effectiveness of career counseling interventions that use CAC Gs (Sampson, 1984; Sampson et al, 1989), especially in light of the projected technological advances involving career assessments over the next 30 years (Tinsley, 2000).
Existing studies, as well as the call for further research, suggest that client anticipations play an important role in the career problem-solving process, but these studies have not systematically assessed the range of client anticipations about use of the CACG systems, nor have they directly related research results to an existing classification system. This is unfortunate, because if counselors were able to understand client anticipations about CACGs more clearly, they could more realistically prepare clients for a CACG experience designed to enhance learning. Therefore, the primary focus of this study was to identify the full range of anticipations clients might have about the use of CACG systems in career problem solving and decision making. The following research question guided this study: What are client anticipations about using a CACG system under both free-response and cued-response conditions?
Participants included 55 clients (31 women, 24 men) seeking career guidance from a comprehensive career center in a large, southeastern university. Clients who approached the reception desk at the career center and requested either "to use a computer" or "to take a test" were asked whether they would volunteer to participate in the study. This question was used as the basis to request participation because it was a common request of clients who were seeking career counseling services and represented the common terminology they used. In addition, we wanted to include clients in this study who were in a state of readiness for career exploration, and we interpreted such a request as connoting a desire to engage in career exploration. Of the participants, 78% classified themselves as Caucasian, 11% as African American, 4% as Asian American, and 4% as Hispanic American. Freshmen made up 27% of the participants, sophomores 23%, juniors 16%, seniors 9%, graduate students 7%, and "other" 16%. The career advisers staf fing the reception desk were master's-level students in career counseling, doctoral students in counseling psychology, and professional career counselors.
Participants were first asked to respond to an open-ended "warm up" question about occupations they had considered from their childhood to this point in their lives. The Anticipations About Computer Outcome--Form A (AACO-A), which we created specifically for this study, consisted of one open-ended question, "What do you anticipate the computer will do for you?" The form included 10 numbered blank lines on which the participants could record their responses. Swanson and Tokar (1991) had used a similar free response, thought-listing instrument to elicit college students' perceptions of barriers to career development, with the rationale that it made data collection more participant guided and less researcher guided. The purpose of this instrument was to elicit noncued comments on how the client thought the CACGs would help them in career decision making and problem solving.
For scoring purposes, several categories were predetermined, based on CIP theory (Peterson et al., 1991; Peterson et al., 1996), including self-knowledge, occupational knowledge, communication, analysis, synthesis, valuing, execution, and executive processing. In addition to the CIP/CASVB categories, we created two additional categories based on the information that was generated by client statements: computer effect and not classifiable. Computer effect included anticipated reactions to the computer delivery system itself. Responses that could not be placed into any other category, that might be placed into two or more categories, or that were incomplete fragmented statements or thoughts were designated as not classifiable. Table 1 provides a description of the code for classifying responses, including sample statements.
To assess clients' responses to specific cues about how the CACGs might address career decision-making and problem-solving needs, we created the Anticipations About Computer Outcomes--Form B (AACO-B) for this study. The AACO-B is a modified instrument with items drawn from the Computer-Assisted Career Guidance Evaluation Form (CACG-EF; Sampson & Peterson, 1984; Shahnasarian & Peterson, 1988), which was designed to compare the outcomes of CACG system use on three variables commonly associated with career decision making. In that study, those three variables translated into scales, including Analysis ([alpha] = .83), Synthesis ([alpha] = .77), and Computer Effect ([alpha] = .87). Sample items of the CACG-EF are "The computer was helpful in accurately clarifying my interests" and "The computer helped me to learn much more about several occupations." The CACG-EF was modified in two main ways to form the AACO-B: We translated 23 items from past into future tense (e.g., "The computer will be helpful in accurately c larifying my interests"), and we added 7 items that more fully represented CIP theory (e.g., "The computer will help me find a job," related to Execution, or "The computer will help me expand my options," related to Synthesis). A 5-point, Likert-type rating scale (5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree) was used to record the degree of endorsement of individual items. Alpha coefficients for this sample for each category were Self-Knowledge Development (4 items, [alpha] = .41), Knowledge About Options (6 items, [alpha] = .77), Communication (3 items, [alpha] = .41), Analysis (2 items, [alpha] = .51), Synthesis (5 items, [alpha] = .51), Valuing (2 items, [alpha] = .45), Execution (2 items, [alpha] = .20), Executive Processing (2 items, [alpha] = .60), and Computer Effect (6 items, [alpha] = .50).
Upon agreeing to become a participant (see Participants section for details of the selection process), each client completed several forms that were administered by a career adviser in a semiprivate area. The forms included an informed consent form, a demographic sheet, the AACO-A (i.e., the open-ended question), and the AACO-B. The AACO-A was placed before the AACO-B to reduce cuing of client anticipations and to gain the participants' initial thoughts as to the usefulness of CACGs in their career decision making and problem solving. After completing the materials, clients resumed the normal process of career guidance from the center. A client's participation in the study had no influence on advisement or interventions chosen by their adviser. Data were collected over the course of 6 months. A minimum level of debriefing occurred immediately after they completed the forms, with the career adviser describing how the CACG could meet the client's specific needs, such as learning about self. Clients were given a number to call to find out more information about the results of the study.
Each response listed on the AACO-A was written on a 3 x 5 card, and we developed a code sheet to describe each of the sorting categories (see Table 1). These categories were based on CIP (Peterson et al., 1991; Peterson et al., 1996; Sampson et al., 1999; Sampson et al., 2000), which describes a process of career decision making and career choice. CIP theory was chosen because of the degree to which it seems to match the outcome research related to CACGs (Sampson, 1996; Peterson et al., 1994).
To determine the fit of the data to the CIP categories, two career advisers who were aware of the purposes of the research were asked to sort the cards, looking only at the card's front side. Both career advisers had about 2 years of career counseling work experience from a CIP perspective and extensive training in the CIP approach. Prior to sorting the cards, the raters were given a copy of the code sheet as well as a practice sorting task using similar responses. Decisions for placement of each practice card response were discussed, and then the raters sorted the participant cards, with a 95% agreement rate required. Numbers of anticipations within each category were totaled. Responses for which there was disagreement between raters were placed in the not classifiable category.
The initial responses to the AACO-A consisted of 147 responses, of which 18 (12%) were discarded because they evaluated as not classifiable, resulting in a final number of 129. Examples of thoughts that could not be classified include those that had a negative connotation (e.g., "The computer will not tell me what my interests are"). Other responses were eliminated because the writing was illegible, included only fragmented thoughts with no objects or verbs included, or did not address the question (e.g., "The computer will be a hot commodity in the future"). The number of anticipations per participant ranged from 0 to 7 (M= 2.5, median = 2).
Because of the extensiveness of the data set, the findings of the AACO-A and AACO-B measures are thematically reported according to the domains of the CIP paradigm as follows.
Self-knowledge development--Thirty of the participants (2 3%) listed anticipations on the AACO-A related to the development of personal knowledge and self-concept. Examples of free responses included "Help me discover my interests" (n = 14), "Help me find my strengths and weakness" (n = 9), and "Learn more about myself" (n = 8). These responses were supported by the endorsement of an item on the AACO-B, "The computer will help me clarify my interests" (72.7% strongly agree or agree).
Occupational knowledge--Anticipations related to securing information about the world of work were formulated by 14 of the participants (11%). They included "Give me information about myself" (n = 10), "Find out what I can do with my major" (n = 3), and "Help me learn about various academic programs" (n = 1). Endorsements to items in this domain on the AACO-B received very strong endorsement. For example, "The computer will show me whether or not I need more information about an occupation before making a career decision" (87.3% strongly agree or agree), "The computer will help me learn about several occupations" (81.8%), and "The computer will help me identify important milestones to achieve in attaining a career, such as educational degrees, training or licenses" (78.2%).
Decision-making skills--With respect to the five phases of the CASVE cycle, every step contained a free response or an endorsed anticipation. With respect to Communication, free response statements on the AACO-A included "Confirm my current direction" (n = 3) or "Make sure I have the right major" (n = 1), whereas endorsements to the AACO-B included "The computer will help me become more confident of being able to choose an occupation" (64.5%). For Analysis, an example of a free response anticipation was "Give me a better understanding of my personality" (n = 3). For Synthesis, free response anticipations included "Give me a list of options to consider that I haven't thought of before" (n = 14), "Help me match my interests/skills with potential career choices" (n = 13), and "Help me narrow down my choices/fields I am considering" (n = 7). Endorsements to Synthesis items on the AACO-B included "The computer will provide me with a variety of career options to consider" (85.5%) and "The computer will present logi cal career options given my values, interests, and skills" (83.6%). Free response anticipations for Valuing included "Pinpoint a job that would be best suited for me" (n = 6) and "Prioritize my job search" (n = 1). The Execution phase included the anticipation, "Teach me job search techniques" (n = 1).
Executive processing--Free response anticipations related to the monitoring and control of lower order information processing components included "Give me direction/focus" (n = 5), "Help me decide on a career" (n = 3), and "Compile my thoughts and interests in a sensible manner" (n = 1), whereas the item "The computer will help me develop a plan of action" was endorsed with strongly agree or agree by 69.0% of the participants.
Computer effect--Anticipations pertaining to computer as a medium of service delivery included "It will work easily" (n = 1) and "I think it will be quite useless" (n = 1).
The purpose of our research was to examine the ways in which clients anticipate that CACGs will be helpful in their career problem solving and decision making. Our findings suggest that clients seek out GACGs for a range of purposes that can be classified with CIP terminology. Investigation of specific results from both measures of anticipations (AACO-A and AACO-B) indicated that clients anticipated or believed that outcomes of using the CACGs might include increased options (Synthesis Elaboration), enhanced Self-Knowledge, strengthened Occupational Knowledge, and gains in direction and focus (Executive Processing) or narrowed options (Synthesis Crystallization).
Similar results were found by Galassi, Grace, Martin, James, and Wallace (1992), with 15% of participants preferring that the test either narrow (Synthesis Crystallization) or broaden options (Synthesis Elaboration) and approximately 26% of participants preferring the computer to enhance their self-knowledge.
Although not a specific research question, responses to one item (Item 29) on the AACO-B indicated that clients vary in the degree to which they think they know what the computer will do, as indicated by a wide range of scores on the survey question. Thirty-six percent of participants indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "I am not sure what the computer will do," whereas 33% indicated they were unsure how to respond to the statement, totaling 69% of clients being unsure of what the computer would do. This finding is particularly interesting, given that a similar finding was noted by Galassi, Grace, Martin, James, and Wallace (1992), with almost 21% of those in that study indicating that they did not know what to anticipate with respect to what a career "test" would do, an additional 17.4% who had miscellaneous or unclassifiable anticipations, and approximately 19% who expressed the faulty anticipation that the test would result in a person--career match.
Implications for Career Counseling
There are several implications for practitioners to be drawn from these findings. First, because most GAGGs are designed to match the most common, appropriate anticipations clients have about these systems, career counseling practitioners could design interventions that would align clients' anticipations about the capabilities of these systems with specific GAGG functions. For example, instead of suggesting that a client use GAGGs as a way to increase career decidedness or help choose a college major, a counselor could recommend using the GACG system to help match client purposes with system features, such as using the interest component of a GAGG system to help a client whose initial goal is to learn more about self. Offer and Sampson (1999) extended this idea to develop the concept of a contract between the client and the counselor, with the idea that the counselor and client should agree on specific needs and how these needs could be addressed.
This idea of matching client need and GAGG capacities assumes that counselors have had adequate training and experience regarding specific CACGs offered in the setting so that they will be knowledgeable enough to make such specific, need-related suggestions. In addition, this study demonstrated how the AACO-A form can quickly be used by a counselor to "zero in" on what a client is seeking with respect to how particular components of GAGGs match with those specific needs. It is important to note that we are not suggesting that goals for counseling will be accurate or solidified at the onset of career counseling. Instead, the identification of specific anticipations should serve as a point of departure for the client's self-exploration. In addition, by asking about and responding to the client's anticipations, career counselors provide an early validating experience for the career counseling client.
As such, a second implication for practitioners involves the need to relate the use of CACGs as an intervention to the broader theoretical perspective of career planning. Providing a client with a consistent rationale for how a GAGG system fits into the career decision-making process as a whole should enhance the client's understanding of how the CACGs can be used to meet his or her needs. Therefore, counselors engaged in career counseling should have the background that prepares them to operate from a well-researched career counseling theory/approach, such as CIP, and should be capable of presenting the rationale for the way in which CACGs fit into that perspective. Practitioners interested in learning more about how to integrate CIP theory with the use of CACGs are referred to Sampson et al. (1992).
A third implication is the important role of orientation to CACGs. With clients unsure about what the CACGs will and will not do, the potential effectiveness of the counseling intervention may be undermined. When clients are not "adequately introduced to the process involved in using a computer application" (Sampson & Pyle, 1983, p. 286), misconceptions about potential outcomes of using the computer may go unchecked and uncorrected. For example, Galassi et al. (1992) found that 48% of the clients thought the test would provide them with a person--career match. This is one of Krumboltz's (1985) seven faulty presuppositions about CACGs use: "The computer knows best which occupations match client characteristics" (p. 167). Describing the general purpose of CAGGs during system orientation increases the possibility of congruency between a client's initial anticipations and the intended system outcome (Sampson, 1983). This study sets up a framework in which a practitioner within a setting that uses technology such as CACG systems can expedite service delivery through the use of the theoretical and yet practice-oriented schema.
Perhaps one such way of enhancing service delivery is to use an instrument such as the AACO-B. Although asking a question such as "What do you anticipate the computer can do for you?" (AACO-A) provides a preliminary view of clients' anticipations, their responses tend to be more general in natine. Using a structured, more detailed instrument could serve as an activity to educate clients on how CACGs might possibly help in career decision making and problem solving. For example, a survey could be created that included specific elements from the CACGs used in that setting. Although a client might expect the outcome of using a CACGs would be to create a list of related occupations (Synthesis Crystallization), he or she might be made aware through such a survey that one of the CACGs at that particular setting offers the opportunity to explore military careers or tips on coping with transitions.
A fifth implication is for CACGs developers. Perhaps it would be possible to design future systems to accommodate specific client anticipations, such as the anticipation that CAGG will help a person to develop a personal plan of action. Another possibility would be for developers to include in the GACGs manual an anticipations checklist as a part of the introduction to the system and to follow this with a discussion of inappropriate anticipations.
A fourth implication of the study, stemming from the previous two, has to do with training career counseling practitioners. In order to meet client needs with CACGs as the chosen intervention as well as to provide effective orientation to the CACGs, the counselor must be aware of the system's design, including its theoretical base, specific modules/sections, occupational database, search features, and research base. Because there is no standardized pre-CACG anticipations checklist or survey, perhaps it would be wise for counselors and/or career software developers to create a list of common, inaccurate client anticipations such as "I think that the computer will show me what I should be" and more appropriate anticipations that could be fulfilled with special features of specific CACGs (e.g., "I believe the computer will help me explore military careers"). This would provide for a discussion of incorrect assumptions, while also allowing the counselor to recommend specific sections in a CACGs that would meet specifi c client needs.
Although this study clarified the kinds of anticipations clients have about CACG outcomes, some limitations exist. The main limitations of this study were instrumentation and sample concerns. Faulty anticipations (e.g., "The computer will find me a job" or "The computer will tell me what I should be") were not included on the AACO-B form. Therefore, the only indicators of potentially faulty anticipations were from the free response item (AACOA). A second limitation was a small sample size and a need for a more racially diverse sample, both of which may limit generalizability. A third limitation is that we included clients who showed some degree of interest in taking a test or using a computer and did not invite individuals who were looking for other information (such as job search material or specific career information) to participate in the study. This might have introduced an element of bias into the study in that those who completed the surveys might have been more interested and invested in self-explorat ion.
This study provided a description of client anticipations and discussed how CACGs might be used in career problem solving and decision making, taking these anticipations into account. Nevertheless, to improve career counselors' service delivery, we believe it is important to further explore and identify connections between client anticipations, the capabilities of CAGGs, and outcomes. Through appropriate preparation and use, clients might be able to avoid unrealistic anticipations about or disappointment in the GAGG system learning and exploration experience.
On the basis of the results of this study, we have concluded that clients come to career counseling with definite anticipations about how a CACG system can assist them in the career problem-solving and decision-making process. Some of these anticipations are clear and well thought out, whereas others are vague and diffuse. In addition, some anticipations are within the capability of the medium of career service delivery, whereas others are beyond it. Fin ally, although most clients seem to have a very positive view of the helpfulness of the GAGG system, a small minority are skeptical about it.
TABLE 1 Free Response Category Descriptions and Examples Category Description Self-Knowledge Information pertaining to the Development development of personal knowledge through life experiences. Self-concept development. Knowledge About Options Any information related to the world of work or edu- cation. The building of occupational knowledge structures. Schema de- velopment; organizing the world of work. Out there knowledge." Communication Becoming aware that a problem/gap exists; in- cludes being in touch with feelings. Also encom- passes knowledge that a good choice has been made or that I need to make a good choice; awareness of a gap be- tween existing lack of in- decision and a desired level of decidedness. Be- coming in touch with the tension between the real and the ideal. Analysis Understanding causal com- ponents of the gap. Why does the gap exist? How do I remove it? Synthesis (Elaboration) Help with identifying/ expanding potential alter- natives. Synthesis (Crystallization) Help with the process of narrowing down options under consideration. Valuing Assessing alternatives in re- lation to one's value system; also involves prioritization of alternatives. Personalized criteria emerge (beyond that which can be mea- sured and sorted by the computer). Execution Information pertaining to the development of a plan or strategies. Executive Processing Includes general problemsolving skills, including task/goal orientation and approach skills. Monitor and control of the task. Lrarner strategies. Computer Effect Comments on how interacting with the computer will be. Not Classifiable For responses that cannot be placed in any other category. Incomplete fragmented statements or thoughts. No objects to verb, or statements that could fit into two or more categories. Off-the-wall statements. Category Example Self-Knowledge "The computer will identify Development my interests and skills." "The computer will show me what I'm good at." Knowledge About Options "The computer will show me the salaries of jobs of interest." "The computer will give me information about majors." Communication "The computer will help me feel better about my future." "The computer will confirm my career choice." Analysis "The computer will help me understand ..." Synthesis (Elaboration) "The computer will help me think of new options." "The computer will show me what I can do with my education." Synthesis (Crystallization) "The computer will help me narrow down fields I am considering." "The computer will help me get rid of options that don't fit me." Valuing "The computer will help me identify the occupation I'm best suited for." Execution "The computer will show me how to get a job." Executive Processing "The computer will provide me with direction." "The computer will help me decide on a carrer." Computer Effect "It will be fun." "It will be easy to understand." Not Classifiable "The computer will not assess my aptitudes." "The computer will be a hot commodity in the future."
Cairo, P. C. (1983). Evaluating the effects of computer-assisted counseling systems: A selective review. The Counseling Psychologist, 11, 53-59.
Florida State University Tech Center. (2003). Key elements of the CIP approach. Retrieved May 10, 2003, from http://www.carer.fsu.edu/techcenter/designing_career_services/index.h tml
Galassi, J. P., Crace, R. K., Martin, G. A., & James, R. M., Jr. (1992). Guiding assumptions, data, minor pestilence: Reply to Tracey (1992) and Tinsley (1992). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 66-70.
Galassi, J. P., Crace, R. K., Martin, G. A., James, R. M., Jr., & Wallace, R. L. (1992). Client preferences and anticipations in career counseling: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 46-55.
June, L. N., & Smith, E. J. (1983). A comparison of client and counselor expectancies regarding the duration of counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 596-599.
Krumbolrz, J. D. (1985). Presuppositions underlying computer use in career counseling. Journal of Career Development, 12, 165-170.
Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary (Deluxe ed.). (1998). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
Metzger, E. I., Sampson, J. P., Jr., & Reardon, R. C. (1988). Computer-assisted career guidance and the adult learner--Two case studies: Technical report no. 8. Tallahassee: Florida State University, Center for the Study of Technology in Counseling and Career Development.
Niles, S. G. (1993). The relationship between Holland types and preferences for career counseling. Journal of Career Development, 19, 209-22.
Offer, M., & Sampson, J. P., Jr. (1999). Quality in the content and use of information and communications technology in guidance. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 27, 501-516.
Peterson, G. W., Ryan-Jones, R. E., Sampson, J. P., Jr., Reardon, R. C., & Shahnasarian, M. (1994). A comparison of the effectiveness of three computer-assisted career guidance systems: DISCOVER, SIGI, and SIGI PLUS. Computers in Human Behavior, 10, 189-198.
Peterson, G. W., Sampson, J. P., Jr., & Reardon, R. C. (1991). Career development and services: A cognitive approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Peterson, G. W., Sampson, J. P., Jr., Reardon, R. C., & Lenz, J. G. (1996). A cognitive information processing approach to career problem solving and decision making. In D. Brown & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice & development (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sampson, J. P., Jr. (1983). An integrated approach to computer applications in counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 11, 65-74.
Sampson, J. P., Jr. (1984). Maximizing the effectiveness of computer applications in counseling and human development: The role of research and implementation strategies. Journal of Counseling and Development, 63, 187-191.
Sampson, J. P., Jr. (1996). Effective computer-assisted career guidance: Occasional paper number 2, second edition. Tallahassee: FL. Center for the Study of Technology in Counseling and Career Development.
Sampson, J. P., Jr., Lenz, J. G., Reardon, R. C., & Peterson, G. W. (1999). A cognitive information processing approach to employment problem solving and decision making. The Career Development Quarterly, 48, 3-18.
Sampson, J. P., Jr., & Peterson, G. W. (1984). Evaluation standard: Computer-assisted career guidance systems. Unpublished manuscript, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
Sampson, J. P., Jr., Peterson, G. W., & Reardon, R. C. (1989). Counselor intervention strategies for computer-assisted career guidance: An information-processing approach. Journal of Career Development, 16, 139-154.
Sampson, J. P., Jr., Peterson, G. W., Reardon, R. C., & Lenz, J. G. (2000). Using readiness assessment to improve career services: A cognitive information processing approach. The Career Development Quarterly, 49, 146-174.
Sampson, J. P., Jr., Petetson, G. W., Reardon, R. C., Lenz, J. G., Shahnasarian, M., & Ryan-Jones, R. E. (1992). The social influence of two computer-assisted career guidance systems: DISCOVER and SIGI. The Career Development Quarterly, 41, 75-83.
Sampson, J. P., Jr., & Pyle, K. R. (1983). Ethical issues involved with the use of computer-assisted counseling, testing and guidance systems. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 61, 283-287.
Shahnasarian, M., & Peterson, G. W. (1988). The effect of a prior cognitive structuring intervention with computer-assisted career guidance. Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 125-31.
Swanson, J. L., & Tokar, D. M. (1991). College students' perceptions of barriers to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38, 92-106.
Tinsley, H. E. A. (2000). Technological magic, social change and counseling rituals: The future of career assessment. Journal of Career Assessment 8, 339-350.
Young, R. A. (1985). Client conceptions of change in career development and career counseling. Journal of Employment Counseling, 22, 50-58.
Debra S. Osborn, Psychological and Social Foundations Department, University of South Florida; Gary W. Peterson, James P. Sampson Jr., and Robert C. Reardon, Educational Psychology and Learning Systems Department, Florida State University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Debra S. Osborn, Department of Psychological and Social Foundations, College of Education, 4204 Fowler Avenue, EDU 162, Tampa, FL 33620-5650 (e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org).
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Reardon, Robert C.|
|Publication:||Career Development Quarterly|
|Date:||Jun 1, 2003|
|Previous Article:||Beyond mentoring: alternative sources and functions of developmental support.|
|Next Article:||Suggestions for training students in using the internet for career counseling. (Effective Techniques).|