Alternate Models
Incomplete. Information on Gati's theory hasn't been found yet.
Prediger's Two-Dimensional Model
History and Theory
The current and most popular version of the RIASEC model is a combination of Holland's original work and Prediger's re-conceptualization of it. Before Prediger, each point on the hexagonal model completely defined it's respective factor, but Prediger proposed an added layer of depth. He saw that there was a disconnect between occupational prospects and simple labels, so he proposed 3 extra factors, 2 of them being bipolar dimensions (people-things and ideas-data), and the other being a general response bias, which is shown by laying a cross on the original model and labeling the points. In grouping these general occupational types under interest combos he helped to redefine and clarify the apparent link between interest and vocational choice.
Gati's Hierarchy
History
In 1991, Gati criticized Holland's model for being too simplistic and claimed that his own theory of clustered hierarchy was superior, without evidence. Tracey and Rounds decided to conduct a meta-structural analysis on these systems "using 104 different RIASEC correlation matrices covering a total sample size of 47,268 individuals"[1] and were able to deduce that in the US Holland's RIASEC model was superior across age, gender, and instruments, but there was less clear data concerning non-US samples.
So they decided to conduct a second analysis of these systems 4 years later,
They found that in neither of these groups was Holland’s model as strongly supported as it was for U.S. majority (or ethnicity unspecified) samples. In this analysis, Gati’s hierarchical model fit the international data better than did Holland’s model. Moreover, neither model fit the U.S. ethnic samples well. Day and Rounds (1998) examined the fit of Holland’s model to a large, representative single sample of U.S. ethnic groups and found support for the fit of Holland’s model to these groups. Obviously, a one-sample examination is limited, yet the fit of Holland’s model to U.S. data is strong for general samples but less clear for ethnic samples
Theory
Tracey and Rounds - Spheres and PGI
History
The development of Tracey and Rounds's theories can be traced back to their comparisons of Holland's and Gati's rivaling models, putting to the test their validity and accuracy in measuring personality based on vocational preferences. In doing so, they developed a more octagonal model by adding two more factors, and merged them into the model of a sphere in order to retain flexibility and accurately measure large populations. Their discovery of Prediger's theory of two additional dimensions- things-people and ideas-data also impacted the development of their theory greatly. While they agreed with his perspective on these dimensions they also added one of their own, known as the "Prestige" dimension which fit within the realm of hierarchy and social status. They noticed that this dimension has always existed across many works of theory, but was never paid attention to,
The occupational perceptions literature always finds that prestige is one of the most prominent factors that people use in evaluating different occupations (Coxon & Jones, 1978; Crites, 1969; Hodge, Siegel, & Rossi, 1964; Plata, 1975; Reeb, 1974; Trieman, 1977). Roe (Roe, 1956; Roe & Klos, 1969) and Gottfredson (1980) have focused their models around the explicit incorporation of prestige. However, such focus and recognition of the centrality of prestige has not been translated into interest assessment. (Tracey, 2002)
With these three dimensions at hand, they created 24 scales to represent different points on the sphere created by the 3 dimensions and called it the Inventory of Occupational Preferences (IOP). Prediger criticized this idea, claiming that prestige only manifests as an item type rather than a dimension that influences or indicates parts of the personality[2], though, he undertook a similar method done by Tracey and Rounds and concluded that the spherical model was a comprehensive representation of how activity preference scales and competency estimate scales fit into the personality. To represent, there were two hemispheres dictating the hierarchical positioning of their factors, the top hemisphere (left) represents high prestige, the bottom hemisphere (right) represents low prestige. The overlap in the RIASEC theory shows in its equator- representing familiar general interest- as well as the ordering of the factors being based on their similarity.
|
|
|
The only problem was, the IOP system was very juvenile and was as structurally consistent as a jellyfish in a black hole because its definitions and terms were either too broad, too vague, or sometimes overlapped,
Both measures had overlapping items (i.e., some items loaded on two scales) and scales, there were varying numbers of items per scale, there were some similarly named scales even though they occupied different parts of the sphere, there was some inconsistent content within the scales, and the activities used in the PI varied between the preference scoring and the competence scoring. (Tracey 2002)
But, they were receiving a lot of support in this system, especially after promising results from tests in Japan and felt they needed a system more refined to be taken seriously. Thus, their personality system was reorganized and formalized in order to include all aspects of their research but in an accurate and clear manner. It was known as the Personal Globe Inventory, or PGI.
Theory
Firstly, PGI must be understood by it's fundamental components. It is a sphere whose three dimensions are defined by people-things, ideas-data, and prestige. Then, there are eight Basic Interest Scales (represented by the gray area), an extension of the original six RIASEC scales, and measure the different things people take interest in.
Something to note about prestige is what a person's scores in them say about them. Higher prestige usually takes more effort and skill to learn or master and may take up a lot of time, so it may be indicative of highly ambitious people that enjoy working hard or are worried about their resource availability or identify their sense of freedom with their quantity of resources, while people with low prestigious scores may be more laid-back or, in some sense, free-spirited, their identification of freedom may be more subjective.
Basic Interest Scales
Business Contact/Managing - Interest in organization and planning for a company, understanding future prospects, managing effectiveness
Business Detail - Accounting, assessing, estimating, advising, and budgeting are interests of people scoring high on this scale
Technical - Interest in mathematics, systems, analysis, interpreting data, and solving technical problems
Mechanical - Interest in machinery and installation of machinery
Life Sciences - Interest in working with animals and plants
Artistic - Interest in free intellectual and emotional expression through visual or literary methods
Helping - Interest in interpersonal relationships, teaching, and providing
High Prestige Interest Areas
Influence - Interest in leading other people whether it be in a business position, politics, or science. Persuasive.
Business Systems - Designing of systems and applying this to business related matters is the interest of this scale
Financial Analysis - Work directly with customers on their finances
Science - Interest in the development of knowledge and research, enjoy studying phenomena
Low Prestige Interest Areas
Quality Control - Checking and protecting the quality and safety of products, materials, and services are interests of people who have high scores on this scale.
Manual Work - An interest in operating machinery or vehicles and attendant services and working in occupations that have minimal training requirements is expressed by people in these occupations
Personal Service - Interests in activities offering help to people in everyday transactions is the focus of this scale. People scoring high on the scale like serving others food and drink, giving them information, helping them buy clothes, and seeing to their comfort
Construction/Repair - An interest in working outdoors, working with ones hands building structures andoperating or repairing machines is the focus of this scale.
Basic Services - This scale measures interest in selling products and services, greeting people, making
reservations, renting equipment, and cleaning.
The Test
The PGI is composed of three sets of items: 108 Occupational titles to which respondents endorse their liking from 1 = Strongly Dislike to 7 = Strongly Like; 113 Occupational activities to which the respondents endorse their liking (1 = Strongly Dislike to 7 = Strongly Like) and their perceived competence (1 = Unable to do to 7 = Very Competent). In the extended PGI all three sets of items are given for a total of 334 items). But the more common PGI uses only the occupational activity items (for a total of 226 items).
121 total scores reported for each test taker:
• a. 18 scales of the Personal Globe (liking and competence combined)
scored using general sample norm and also using same sex norms,
• b. 18 scales of the LIKING responses,
• c. 18 scales of the Competence responses,
• d. 18 (liking and competence combined) raw scores
• e. the four very general scales of: People, Things, Data, and Ideas (using
both general norms and same sex norms),
• f. the six Holland RIASEC types (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social,
Enterprising, and Conventional), scores (both using general sample norms
and same sex norms)
• g. the dimensional scores of the interest globe: People vs. Things, Data vs.
Ideas, and Prestige. scores (both using general sample norms and same sex
norms)
• h. The difference between liking scores and competence scores (both using
general sample norms and same sex norms)
• i. Validity scales (liking; competence; difference)
PGI-Short
The PGI-Short is an abbreviated version of the PGI and is composed of 40
activities to which respondents endorse their liking from 1 = Very Strongly
Dislike to 7 = Very Strongly Like; and their perceived competence (1 = Unable to
PGI manual 10
do to 7 = Very Competent). It yields fewer scale scores with the main difference
being the omission of all the high and low prestige scale scores except the high
prestige (north pole) and low prestige (south pole scale scores. So the PGI-S has
only 81 total scores reported for each test taker:
• a. 8 basic interest scales of the Personal Globe and hi prestige and low
prestige (liking and competence combined) scored using general sample
norm and also using same sex norms,
• b. 8 basic interest scales and high and low prestige of the LIKING
responses ,
• c. 8 basic interest scales and high and low prestige of the Competence
responses,
• d. 8 basic interest scales and high and low prestige (liking and competence
combined) raw scores
• e. the four very general scales of: People, Things, Data, and Ideas (using
both general norms and same sex norms),
• f. the six Holland RIASEC types (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social,
Enterprising, and Conventional), scores (both using general sample norms
and same sex norms)
• g. the dimensional scores of the interest globe: People vs. Things, Data vs.
Ideas, and Prestige. scores (both using general sample norms and same sex
norms)
• h. The difference between liking score
The PGI the PGI-Short and the PGI-Mini are normed using a representative
sample of high school and college students (ages ranging from 16-24 (mean 20.5).
This sample contained 500 men and 500 women and were generated to represent
the 2010 U. S. census with respect to ethnicity. The instrument reports all scores
in T score units (mean =50, SD=10) relative to the total norm group and also
relative to the same sex norm group.
Birkman Scales
Lumina Spark
Belbin Team Roles
References
[1]Tracey, T. J. G. (2002). Personal Globe Inventory: Measurement of the spherical model of interests and competence beliefs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60(1), 113–172. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1817
Tracey, T. J. G. (2019). PERSONAL GLOBE INVENTORY PGI, PGI-Short, and PGI-Mini. Pheonix; ASU.
No Comments