Stability of Scores on Super’s Work Values Inventory

Abstract

Test–retest data on Super’s Work Values Inventory–Revised for a group of predominantly White (N = 995) women (mean age = 23.5 years, SD = 8.07) and men (mean age = 21.5 years, SD = 5.80) showed stability in mean-level scores over a period of 1 year for the sample as a whole. However, low raw score and rank order stability coefficients suggest less stability of individual scores.

Keywords

vocational assessment work values stability Super’s Work Values Inventory

A key ingredient of successful career counseling interventions is career assessment (Brown et al., 2003; Brown & Ryan Krane, 2000), with assessment of interests and work values being common (Hartung, 2005). Thus, it is important that counselors have adequate information on the evidence of reliability and validity to aid in selection of assessments for career counseling use. Although much has been written on the psychometric properties of numerous interest assessments (see Hansen, 2005, for a review), less attention has been directed toward examination of work values assessments.

The study of basic values has suggested that values can be defined as specific beliefs that refer to desired outcomes or behaviors, are consistent across situations, and serve to motivate and guide one’s behavior (Schwartz, 1994). Despite the discussion of values in many different disciplines (e.g., sociology, theology, psychology), research on values has experienced waning interest in the past (Hitlin & Paliavin, 2004; Rohan, 2000), although Schwartz’s (1994, 1999) more contemporary theory of values has helped revive the study of values and has received empirical support (see Ralston et al., 2011; Schwartz, 1992, 1994, 1996; Schwartz & Boehnke, 2004). Schwartz’s theory of values specifies 10 universal values, a subset of which may apply to a work context. The values of achievement and security included in Schwartz’s theory, for instance, may be important to an individual, with his or her job providing opportunities to satisfy these values. In the vocational psychology literature, work values have been defined not only as desired outcomes or behaviors in a work environment but also as positive reinforcers of job satisfaction (Zytowski, 1994). Thus, work values can be conceptualized as areas of importance that add to one’s job satisfaction, such as income, opportunities to use one’s skills, or the ability to help others in one’s job. Work values have been found to be central to one’s basic life values, highlighting the importance of considering one’s work values to explain what motivates and creates meaning in an individual’s life (Ros, Schwartz, & Surkiss, 1999; Schwartz, 1999).

Measurement of work values has been stagnant over the past few decades, despite the recent increase in research on basic values and the continued use of work values assessments in career counseling contexts (Rounds & Armstrong, 2005). The use of two work value assessments in particular seems to have endured. These assessments include the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire (MIQ; Rounds, Henly, Dawis, Lofquist, & Weiss, 1981) and Super’s Work Values Inventory (SWVI; Super, 1970). Although extensive evidence of the reliability and validity of the MIQ has been produced over the years (see Rounds et al., 1981, for a review), less information is available about the stability of values assessed by the SWVI, and no information is available for the stability of scores for Super’s Work Values Inventory–Revised (SWVI-R).

Stability of Work Values

The stability of work values can be assessed from two perspectives. First, stability of the magnitude of work values can be examined via comparisons of the mean level of values over time that provide information about absolute changes in the importance of different values over time at the population level, or for a sample as a whole. Stability can also be assessed by comparing the relative importance of values given the ranking of values across time, or the rank order stability. This approach captures the stability of the hierarchy of values over time and can highlight changes in value priorities independent of mean-level changes. Although both perspectives provide insight into the stability of values, the latter method may provide useful information about the total stability of one’s values relative to each other, whereas the former captures the changes in the overall magnitude of values over time, making the examination of both mean-level and rank order stability of values scores necessary to fully capture the stability of values.

Conjecture and research on work values emphasize the importance of considering both the mean-level and rank order stability of work values scores. Some conceptualizations of values assume values systems should be considered hierarchies, with highly prioritized values influencing behavior more than lower prioritized values (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). Examination of the rank order of one’s values is paramount, as the importance of different values relative to others provides the most useful information for understanding behavior. This perspective also assumes that value priorities may change throughout the life course as different life experiences may influence and shape one’s priorities for what one values.

The most recent evidence scores suggests that the stability of work values scores is comparable to the stability of scores for vocational interests and personality measures. Evidence from a meta-analysis suggests that the stability of work values scores is similar to vocational interests and may be more stable than personality traits. In a study by Jin and Rounds (2012), work values of young adults (22–29 years), collected from 28 published longitudinal studies from 1965 to 2007, were assessed. Values as measured by the MIQ, SWVI, the Work Aspect Preference Scale (Pryor, 1983), and the Meaning of Work study (MOW International Research Team, 1987) were included. Results found that the mean stability of work values scores (r = .62), controlling for differences in time delay, was similar to the stability of scores for vocational interests (r = .70) measured by a variety of interests assessments, as found in a meta-analysis by Low, Yoon, Roberts, and Rounds (2005). Additionally, mean stability of work values scores was greater than that of the Big Five personality traits (r = .57) as assessed through meta-analysis by Roberts and DelVecchio (2000).

Despite evidence that work values may function as primarily stable traits, there is some instability in work values over the life span. Bardi and Goodwin (2011) suggest that values may change (i.e., reduced stability) temporarily as a result of priming one to think about a particular value or one’s values may change permanently given life experiences (e.g., societal changes, exposure to trauma, parenthood). In particular, the transition to adulthood seems to bring about the most instability in one’s work values. Early work by Gribbons and Lohnes (1965) examined the rank order stability of work values of adolescents as they progressed through high school. Overall, the most important values of satisfaction and interest in the job did not fluctuate for participants during the period between 8th and 12th grades in their sample. Despite the stability in these top values, other values appeared to change priorities. Gribbons and Lohnes theorize that these changes in values over time reflect that adolescents initially value the more idealistic aspects of a job (e.g., prioritizing social service, personal goals, location, and travel values), with more realistic values (e.g., marriage and family, preparation and ability, and advancement) taking priority by the 12th grade. Other samples measuring students over the high school period have also found that work values are affected during this developmental period (Kapes & Strickler, 1975) as well as the period during college (Lindsay & Knox, 1984). A possible reason for the instability of work values during this period of late adolescence and early adulthood is that individuals are focusing on career development and selection of a career path by engaging in various educational and occupational opportunities that may alter their value priorities as these experiences allow for more realistic appraisal of the world of work.

Given the impact of life experience on value development, researchers have concluded that aging, by virtue of having additional experiences, affects the stability of values (Jin & Rounds, 2012; Johnson, 2001, 2002). Examination of the stability of work values in a national sample of adolescents over eight waves from the time individuals were seniors in high school to adults (approximately 31–32 years) found that stability of values increased with age (Johnson, 2001). Stability between later waves of the study was much greater than between earlier waves, suggesting that although values may change during the transition to adulthood, they become more stable as individuals progress into adulthood. Furthermore, Jin and Rounds’ (2012) research found that rank order stability of work values was the lowest during the college years and that stability increased during the years after college. Despite this, the overall ranking of values was generally stable during the period spanning adolescence into adulthood. Collective evidence then suggests that work values tend to remain relatively stable across the life span but are more likely to fluctuate during the period of late adolescence and early adulthood.

Mean-level changes in values scores also offer information about population changes in work values over time and across developmental stages. Cohort studies of adolescents during different decades note population changes in the importance of different values. Data from high school students show that the importance of autonomy, lifestyle/time for leisure, and extrinsic values has grown since the 1970s (Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, & Lance, 2010), given mean-level changes in these values for the population over time.

Furthermore, mean-level examination of values is consistent with rank order information, showing that work values may change during the life span. Johnson (2001) found that the means of all values examined dropped from the period between adolescence and adulthood. Johnson posited that this decline in mean levels of work values was partially because of the disparity between the expected amount of rewards (e.g., reinforcers of job values) available in the work environment prior to work experience when assessed in adolescence and then the more realistic expectations once additional work experience is obtained by adulthood. Hence, with work experience, individuals were more likely to reduce their expectations of the rewards available to them in the workplace. Similar findings in Jin and Rounds’s (2012) meta-analysis show that all values, with the exception of extrinsic values, decreased in importance over time.

Group mean-level examination of values also highlights sex differences in work values, with men valuing extrinsic values more whereas women place more importance on intrinsic, altruistic, and social values (Beutell & Brenner, 1986; Johnson, 2001; Konrad, Ritchie, Lieb, & Corrigall, 2000; Lindsay & Knox, 1984; Marini, Fan, Finley, & Beutel, 1996). However, examination of rank order data suggests that sex differences in values tend to be small, with men and women ranking the most important values similarly (Bennett & Stadt, 1997; Beutell & Brenner, 1986; Rowe & Snizek, 1995).

Beyond examining rank order and mean-level changes in values, Roe and Ester (1999) mention that investigations of profile stability of values can also be useful. Often research looking at profile stability focuses on profiles at the group level, assessing values of nations or populations (e.g., Schwartz, 1999), and less often examines the stability of individuals’ profiles (Bardi & Goodwin, 2011). However, examining intraindividual profile stabilities of values offers a more holistic approach the study of values as it takes into account individual changes in the overall pattern of one’s values over time and may offer insight into the process of value change over the life span more than examinations of mean-level changes that reflect population-level stability estimates of values or rank order changes (Gay, Weiss, Hendel, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1971). Work by Hendel and Weiss (1970) found that median individual profile stabilities (r = .87) were greater than test–retest stabilities (r = .53) on the MIQ in a college student sample tested over a delay period of 10 months. Although this sample was small (N = 38) and mostly female (81.5% of the sample), a larger college student sample collected by Hendel and Weiss (N = 283) found median profile stabilities (r = .87) over a 6-week delay to still be higher than median test–retest correlations (r = .75).

Research examining intraindividual changes in basic values suggests that values may change in an organized manner (Bardi, Lee, Hofmann-Towfigh, & Soutar, 2009), with increases in complementary values occurring together as a result of life experiences. For example, Bardi et al. found that changes in the importance of benevolence led to changes in the importance of universalism and decreases in opposing self-direction values (e.g., hedonism, power, achievement) in a sample of young adults. Although no investigations of intraindividual profile stability of SWVI-R scores have been completed, this method of examining stability may lay the groundwork for further investigations on the processes of individuals’ changes in work values.

Despite some global evidence that work values tend to be stable traits, there is limited evidence of reliability and profile stability available for specific measures of work values (Rounds & Armstrong, 2005). Furthermore, no studies have been identified that have examined the stability of SWVI-R scores. Evidence of stability for prior versions of Super’s measures can be found, though this information is also limited. For instance, 2-week test–retest reliabilities of the 1970 version of the SWVI ranged from .74 (Associates) to .88 (Economic Returns) in a sample of high school students (Super, 1970), whereas 2-month test–retest reliabilities for the scales ranged from .48 to .74 in a sample of college applicants (Zaccaria, Jacobs, Creaser, & Klehr, 1972). This information does suggest that the prior version of the SWVI produces relatively stable values scores; however, information on the revised version is not available. Despite the widespread use of the SWVI, the scarcity of research on the psychometric properties of the newly revised instrument influences researchers’ and clinicians’ ability to transition to using the SWVI-R with confidence.

To address this shortfall in the literature, the present study sought to examine the evidence of stability of scores for the SWVI-R by assessing individuals over two time points. The investigation of population-level stability as well as individual-level stability was of interest. Because of evidence of sex differences on SWVI-R scores (Zytowski, 2006), preliminary analysis examined sex differences in the mean-level stability of SWVI-R scores prior to conducting further analyses, with the anticipation that if sex differences exist, analyses would be conducted separately for women and men. Examination of individual-level stability was possible given data on raw scales scores as well as rank order scales scores. It was expected that rank order stability would be greater than stability estimates for raw scores based on results of prior research on work values (Jin & Rounds, 2012) finding that across different measures of work values, rank order stability was higher. The current data also allowed for further examination of individual-level stability by assessing individual profile stabilities of SWVI-R scores. Research on the MIQ suggests that profile stability estimates are greater that test–retest estimates, so it was expected that the SWVI-R profiles stabilities would be greater than test–retest coefficients.

Method

Participants

Participants included 499 women and 496 men who completed the SWVI-R as part of the Kuder Journey, an online career assessment and development program administered in a variety of postsecondary and work force development centers. Retest data were obtained from individuals willing to repeat the assessment at a later date. Data were collected nationally, with participants residing in 37 states. The ethnic background reported by the sample was predominantly White (49.3%) but included individuals reporting their ethnicity as Black (15.5%), Hispanic (10.1%), Asian (2.8%), American Indian (1.3%), Alaskan Native (0.2%), Pacific Islander (1.1%), and other ethnicities (3.4%). Data on ethnicity were not reported by 16.3% of participants. Mean age of women was 23.5 years (SD = 8.07) and ranged from 20 to 60 years. Mean age for men was 21.5 years (SD = 5.80), ranging from 20 to 66 years. Data were collected between 2007 and 2011. Retest data were collect from a period of 12 months to 18 months from initial testing, with the average delay between first testing and the retesting being 13.61 months (SD = 1.81). Data for the study were made available by the assessment publishers, and additional information on study participants was unavailable.

Measurement

The SWVI-R (Zytowski, 2006) is the most recent version of Super’s (1970) original work values instrument. First derived from Super’s (1957) Career Pattern Study of young men’s career development, the SWVI has undergone many revisions. The earliest version of the SWVI consisted of 15 items derived from literature on job satisfaction. Items were later refined in a series of interviews and studies with samples of adolescents and employed adults (Super, 1970). After some adjustment in the response format of the instrument (e.g., opting for a Likert-type response format after recognizing the limitations of a forced-choice format), the resulting 1970 version of SWVI included 45 items rated on a 5-point scale from very important to unimportant that formed 15 values scales (Altruism, Esthetics, Creativity, Intellectual Stimulation, Achievement, Independence, Prestige, Management, Economic Returns, Security, Surroundings, Supervisory Relations, Associates, Way of Life, and Variety). This version was used for a number of years until it was revised recently by Zytowski (2006).

Revisions to the SWVI, as outlined by Zytowski (2006), were substantial. First, additional items were added. With only 3 items per scale on the 1970 version of the SWVI, the range of possible scales scores was narrow, with negatively skewed means. To remedy this, an additional 3 items were created for each value scale, resulting in 6 items per scale. Next, based on high correlations with vocational interest scales, 3 values scales were eliminated (Altruism, Esthetics, and Management). Finally, the 5-point response scale was retained, but updated descriptions related to career choice were added (e.g., “I would not consider a job without it”). The result was the SWVI-R, with 12 values scales captured by 72 items. The SWVI-R includes the remaining 12 scales—Achievement, Coworkers, Creativity, Income, Independence, Lifestyle, Challenge, Prestige, Security, Supervision, Variety, and Workplace—which are measured using a 5-point scale (1 = not important at all/not a factor in my job selection to 5 = crucial/I would not consider a job without it). Research by Robinson and Betz (2008) suggests that there is acceptable evidence of convergent and discriminant validity for SWVI-R scale scores. The manual reports that internal consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for the 12 scales ranges from .72 to .88 (Zytowski, 2006). As part of the current protocol, individuals also were asked to rank the 12 values from 1 to 12 that allowed for the collection of rank order scores for the values independent of the values scores calculated by the sum of the 6 items per each value scale. Therefore, although an individual’s calculated score on one scale may have placed that value as the third most important value of the 12, he or she may have ranked that value as fifth most important.

Analyses

To examine the stability of the SWVI-R scores at both the group and individual levels, three sets of analyses were completed. First, analyses examined absolute mean-level stability across time at the group level by calculating mean differences in the 12 SWVI-R raw scale scores from Time 1 to Time 2 using repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining mean differences by time for the 12 values scales. Because gender differences in SWVI-R value scores have been found (Zytowski, 2006), sex was also included as an independent variable, along with time, in the ANOVA analysis. Second, correlations between Time 1 and Time 2 raw scales scores were calculated to assess overall stability (test–retest) of SWVI-R scores. Additional analyses assessed the rank order stability of the values scales by computing the Spearman’s rho correlation for the independent rank order data of each of the 12 SVWI-R scales.

Furthermore, intraindividual stability, or the stability of each individual’s rank order profile, was calculated by comparing rank order scores from Time 1 to Time 2 rank order scores for each scale for each individual in the third analysis. Multiple methods for calculating profile stability exist (see McCrae, 2008), including the use of Pearson’s correlation and double-entry interclass correlation. Furr (2010) suggests the use of Pearson correlation when the profile shape, or the pattern of scores (e.g., high vs. low scores), is of interest. The results of Pearson’s correlation and the double-entry interclass correlation are similar for profiles that have similar elevation or variance of scores (Furr, 2010). For the current data, profile elevation and variance were restricted given the use of rank order data, thus making the use of the double-entry interclass correlation unnecessary. Additionally, Spearman’s rho was calculated in place of Pearson correlations given that rank order SWVI-R scores were used. Therefore, for each individual, Time 1 rank order SWVI-R scores were correlated with Time 2 rank order scores, with the resulting correlation reflecting the stability of that individual’s ranking of SWVI-R scores over the delay period.

Further analyses of the intraindividual profile stability scores were conducted to provide a summary of the median scores across individuals. Following the suggested procedure for comparison of correlations, particularly for large samples (Gorsuch & Lehmann, 2010), conversion of the correlations to Fischer’s z was completed prior to calculating the median correlation for women, men, and the entire sample. Although prior research on the profile stability of values suggests few sex differences (Johnson, 2001), given that sex differences were found in SWVI-R scores in the first analysis, mean and median profile stability was calculated separately for women and men to allow for examination of sex differences.

Results

Mean-Level Stability of SWVI-R Scale Scores

Mean scales scores for Time 1 and Time 2 were calculated (see Table 1). Using repeated-measures ANOVA, main effects for mean-level changes in raw scores from Time 1 and Time 2 and mean-level differences based on participant sex, as well the interaction between time and sex, were examined for the sample as a whole. Results found that there were no significant main effects in mean scores across time, with all effect sizes being in the small range. Using the Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons (i.e., p < .004, resulted in rejecting the null hypothesis), main effects for sex were significant for the values of Workplace, F(1, 993) = 30.08, p < .001, and Supervision, F(1, 993) = 20.71, p < .001, with women reporting higher importance of these values, although effect sizes were small. No significant interaction effects between time and sex were found, suggesting that female and male scores could be combined for further analyses on scale scores.

Table 1.

Repeated-Measures ANOVA With Time 1 and Time 2 SWVI-R Raw Scale Scores by Sex.

	Women		Men		Time		Sex		Interaction Time × Sex
SWVI-R Scale	Time 1, Mean (SE)	Time 2, Mean (SE)	Time 1, Mean (SE)	Time 2, Mean (SE)	F	Partial η²	F	Partial η²	F	Partial η²
Variety	20.89 (0.21)	20.46 (0.23)	20.43 (0.23)	20.15 (0.23)	3.33	.00	2.34	.00	0.16	.00
Achievement	22.72 (0.24)	22.37 (0.25)	22.00 (0.24)	21.62 (0.25)	3.12	.00	7.15	.01	0.00	.00
Workplace	23.08 (0.24)	22.80 (0.24)	21.52 (0.24)	21.39 (0.24)	1.03	.00	30.08*	.03	0.12	.00
Coworkers	22.13 (0.24)	21.60 (0.25)	21.72 (0.24)	21.51 (0.25)	3.23	.00	0.85	.00	0.57	.00
Supervision	23.68 (0.24)	23.39 (0.25)	22.49 (0.24)	22.14 (0.25)	2.20	.00	20.71*	.02	0.02	.00
Creativity	18.99 (0.22)	18.51 (0.24)	19.31 (0.22)	19.45 (0.24)	0.80	.00	6.03	.01	2.62	.00
Security	23.03 (0.25)	22.90 (0.26)	22.35 (0.25)	22.46 (0.27)	0.00	.00	3.68	.00	0.31	.00
Independence	20.78 (0.21)	20.33 (0.22)	20.86 (0.21)	20.73 (0.22)	2.50	.00	1.01	.00	0.73	.00
Prestige	20.62 (0.23)	20.10 (0.25)	20.25 (0.23)	19.87 (0.25)	4.96	.01	1.22	.00	0.14	.00
Lifestyle	24.14 (0.25)	23.82 (0.26)	23.08 (0.25)	23.15 (0.26)	0.32	.00	9.22	.01	0.79	.00
Challenge	20.90 (0.22)	20.30 (0.23)	20.85 (0.22)	20.56 (0.24)	5.71	.01	0.17	.00	0.07	.00
Income	21.33 (0.26)	20.83 (0.26)	21.84 (0.26)	21.78 (0.26)	1.63	.00	6.16	.01	0.98	.00

Note. ANOVA = analysis of variance; SWVI-R = Super’s Work Values Inventory–Revised. Degrees of freedom = (1, 993).

p < .001.

Stability of SWVI-R Scale Scores

Stability of SWVI-R Raw Scale Scores

Correlations between SWVI-R raw scale scores taken at Time 1 and Time 2 are reported in Table 2. Results showed that stability coefficients (i.e., test–retest correlations) ranged from .23 (Supervision) to .31 (Challenge). The median stability coefficient was r = .29. Effect sizes for stability correlations for Achievement, Security, and Challenge were in the medium range (e.g., r < .30; Cohen, 1992). The magnitude of all remaining stability correlations suggests that effect sizes were in the small range (e.g., r < .30), meaning that little shared variance between Time 1 and Time 2 scores was observed for most SWVI-R raw scale scores.

Table 2.

Correlations Between SWVI-R Raw Scale Scores at Time 1 and Time 2.

	Time 2 Scores
Time 1 Scores	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Variety	.26	.20	.15	.14	.12	.19	.11	.19	.19	.13	.24	.08
2. Achievement	.21	.30	.20	.21	.19	.13	.16	.19	.23	.19	.24	.11
3. Workplace	.15	.22	.27	.22	.21	.09	.20	.15	.22	.19	.17	.15
4. Coworkers	.14	.18	.19	.25	.20	.11	.15	.15	.19	.16	.15	.11
5. Supervision	.13	.19	.21	.22	.23	.07	.18	.14	.16	.18	.14	.11
6. Creativity	.22	.16	.10	.12	.07	.29	.03	.18	.17	.05	.25	.05
7. Security	.10	.17	.20	.18	.17	.03	.30	.13	.16	.18	.12	.17
8. Independence	.16	.16	.14	.12	.12	.15	.12	.25	.15	.13	.21	.14
9. Prestige	.16	.22	.18	.19	.14	.12	.12	.15	.29	.09	.18	.12
10. Lifestyle	.14	.19	.22	.19	.20	.07	.21	.16	.14	.26	.15	.13
11. Challenge	.23	.24	.15	.13	.12	.21	.09	.19	.20	.12	.31	.07
12. Income	.08	.11	.18	.16	.12	.03	.19	.15	.16	.14	.08	.29

Note. Stability coefficients are in boldface on the diagonal. For interpretation, r ≥ .08 = p < .01; r ≥ .11 = p < .001.

Stability of SWVI-R Rank Order Scale Scores

A second method of examining test–retest reliability of the SWVI-R scales, or stability of scores, was possible using correlations of the rank order data. These data provide information on the consistency of the ranking of each scale. Spearman’s rho correlations with rank order data ranged from .21 (Workplace) to .41 (Security; see Table 3), with the stability coefficients for the scales of Supervision, Creativity, Security, Lifestyle, Challenge, and Income nearing medium effects and the remainder being small effects. The median correlation across scales was r = .30.

Table 3.

Spearman’s Rho Correlations Between Time 1 and Time 2 Rank Order SWVI-R Scale Scores.

	Time 2 Scores
Time 1 Scores	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Variety	.25	−.03	−.09	.00	−.12	.14	−.11	.03	.03	−.09	.11	−.12
2. Achievement	.00	.22	−.01	.03	.02	−.07	−.05	−.08	.02	.01	.02	−.09
3. Workplace	−.08	.03	.21	.06	.10	−.15	.09	−.16	−.01	.07	−.13	.00
4. Coworkers	−.06	−.01	.00	.22	.12	−.02	−.06	−.04	.01	−.01	−.10	−.03
5. Supervision	−.11	−.02	.05	.08	.30	−.14	.07	−.10	−.08	.09	−.09	−.04
6. Creativity	.19	−.05	−.15	−.03	−.16	.36	−.24	.11	.04	−.21	.18	−.03
7. Security	−.18	−.02	.04	−.06	.07	−.21	.41	−.07	−.07	.14	−.15	.06
8. Independence	.05	−.06	−.07	−.10	−.12	.12	−.12	.28	−.07	−.04	.10	.03
9. Prestige	.00	.07	.03	−.03	−.07	.02	−.08	.00	.27	−.18	−.01	−.01
10. Lifestyle	−.11	−.02	.11	−.02	.10	−.19	.14	−.08	−.14	.30	−.12	.00
11. Challenge	.12	.05	−.11	−.10	−.15	.17	−.16	.04	.03	−.09	.33	−.12
12. Income	−.08	−.13	.00	−.04	−.06	−.06	.10	.07	−.02	.00	−.14	.32

Note. Stability coefficients are in boldface on the diagonal. For interpretation, r ≥ .08 = p < .01; r ≥ .11 = p < .001.

Individual Profile Stability of SWVI-R Scale Scores

The third set of analyses examined the stability of individuals’ SWVI-R profiles by calculating intraindividual correlations across all rank order data for the 12 SWVI-R scales between Time 1 and Time 2 for each individual. Intraindividual correlations for the total sample ranged from r = −.90 to r = .99. Data suggest that some individuals had very similar values profiles at Time 1 and Time 2 (e.g., r = .99) whereas others had completely opposite profiles (e.g., r = −.90) at Time 1 and Time 2. Correlations were then converted to Fischer’s z to allow for calculation of median correlations, and median Fischer’s z scores were converted back to correlations for interpretation. For the sample of men, the median intraindividual correlation was r = .29, with a mean of r = .29. The stability of women’s profiles was higher, with the median and mean of r = .41. The overall sample median was .36. Comparison of the median intraindividual correlations between men and women was significant (z = −2.15, p = .03), finding that median profile stability was significantly higher for women.

Discussion

Mean-level changes found that no values scales scores significantly differed over time, suggesting that mean-level estimates of values are stable over time for both women and men and that the magnitude of values did not change for the sample as a whole over the delay period. Furthermore, sex differences found that two values did vary by sex (Workplace and Supervision), with women reporting higher importance of these values than men. Despite statistically significant mean sex differences on these values, the small magnitude of these effect sizes revealed that it is likely neither of these differences is meaningful, consistent with other research that has noted few meaningful sex differences in work values (Bennett & Stadt, 1997; Beutell & Brenner, 1986; Rowe & Snizek, 1995). Further examining stability of scores, results on stability of SWVI-R raw scale scores (median r = .29) were lower than estimates for scores on the MIQ over a 10-month delay in a sample of college students (r = .53; Hendel & Weiss, 1970). One hypothesis is that this disparity may be because of the different methods of measurement employed by the MIQ and the SWVI-R. The MIQ has individuals determine the importance of values using a pair comparison format, whereas the SWVI-R uses a Likert-type scaling method. Pair comparison versions of the SWVI have been shown to produce less reliable data (Super, 1973), but pair comparison formats use fewer items, which can also reduce the stability of scale scores, meaning that it would be expected that a Likert-type scaled instrument would have higher estimates of test–retest stability. This was not the case in this sample. Additionally, the delay period in the present study was slightly longer than that used to assess the stability of MIQ scores, which may also reduce median stability estimates. However, the present results are still lower than estimates of stability for other measures of work values with national samples over even longer periods (see Johnson, 2001; Lindsay & Knox, 1984) and lower than test–retest correlations for prior versions of the SWVI (Zaccaria et al., 1972). Finally, historical artifacts of the period in which each study was conducted (e.g., the MIQ study in the late 1960s and the current study in the early 2000s) may have affected the overall stability of values for individuals, as the current study was conducted during a period of economic recession. Further research using the same samples could provide comparison of the stability of SWVI-R scores relative to other values assessments and clarify the current findings.

Rank order stability results (median r = .30) were similar to stability estimates for raw data, which was surprising, as rank order stability with other work values instruments tends to be higher, with meta-analytic findings being around .62 from early adolescence to adulthood (Jin & Rounds, 2012). SWVI-R scale scores were less stable than vocational interests and personality (Low et al., 2005; Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). In sum, results showed that values assessed by the SWVI-R might be stable at the population level given the stability of mean-level scores over time. However, evidence of stability for rank order (test–retest) was low, suggesting that although mean scores for the sample as a whole were not affected by time, for individuals, prioritizing what values are most important was highly affected by time.

As anticipated, profile stability estimates were greater than SWVI-R scale rank order and raw score stability estimates. Albeit higher, profile stability estimates for the SWVI-R were not substantially greater than individual scale stability estimates. Furthermore, profile stabilities (median r = .36) were much lower than profile stability estimates among a samples of college students for MIQ scores over delay periods of 6 weeks and 10 months (median r = .87 for both), suggesting that the SWVI-R may provide less stable values profiles for individuals overall than the MIQ. However, some individuals did have highly stable profiles, as the high end of the range of profile stability estimates was r = .99. Intraindividual stability of work values profiles may also be affected by life or historical experiences of individuals. For example, prior work experience has been shown to be predictive of work value stability (Lindsay & Knox, 1984), whereas previous intrinsic job characteristics were predictive of later intrinsic work values. Work values have also been shown to differ by occupational groups (Hagström & Kjellberg, 2007; Neil & Snizek, 1987); thus, work experiences in new occupational areas may also shift work values. Shifts in larger societal values, such as gender equality (Loo & Thorpe, 2005), have been shown to affect work values and could possibly affect the stability of values for individuals over time. It may be that societal and personal experiences occurring between assessment periods may have affected the stability of individuals’ values profiles, particularly given the state of the economy and record high levels of unemployment (Eberts, 2011) during the study period. Further research is needed to understand what types of individuals and possible environmental factors lead to increased stability of work values scores over time.

One overall finding in the current sample was that women tended to have higher stability for SWVI-R scores, with significant sex differences for total profile stability. Longitudinal data by Johnson (2001) did not find sex differences in the stability of work values over a period of 13 to 14 years. Furthermore, the stability of scores for both vocational interests (Low et al., 2005) and personality traits (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000; Terracciano, McCrae, & Costa, 2010) has been shown not to vary by sex, so it is unclear why sex differences in profile stability are significant for work values measured by the SWVI-R. Women may have had more consistency in their ranking of work values over time because of being slightly older, as age has been found to affect stability (Jin & Rounds, 2012; Johnson, 2001, 2002).

Another hypothesis regarding sex differences in the stability of SWVI-R scores is based on the reality that work values tend to vary in importance based on occupational groups. For example, Hagström and Kjellberg (2007) found that both male and female nurses rate altruistic values as a more important value than male and female engineers do, whereas engineers endorsed the importance of social relations higher. Furthermore, Rowe and Snizek (1995) found that although sex was a weak predictor of work values, the prestige of one’s occupation was a significant predictor of the importance of income, job security, and feelings of accomplishment, suggesting that employment in different occupations may lead to the development of different work values. One possibility is that occupations represented by women in the current sample were occupations that were more likely to produce stability in individuals’ work values over time. Explaining the process by which engagement in different occupations affects the development of one’s values, Johnson (2001) suggests that work values may be affected by the availability of different job factors that either satisfy or do not satisfy a particular work value. This idea, described as the reinforcement hypothesis, suggests that work values that are important but not reinforced by available job factors will likely decline over time as one attaches less importance to these unsupported values in an effort to reduce tension between what one desires and one obtains at work (Johnson, 2001). This hypothesis is also consistent with Rokeach’s (1973) notion that work values are related to one’s self-concept, with one’s values changing to reflect what is available in an effort to preserve one’s self-esteem. It may be that the women in this sample were more likely to be employed or engaged in activities related to occupations that better matched their initial work values, increasing the overall stability of their values over the study period.

In sum, the stability of work values was rather low in this sample. This may be because of a variety of reasons. First, it may be that the values assessed by the SWVI-R, which are not assessed in other investigations, are less stable overall. For example, previous research on the stability of work values generally assesses the larger constructs of intrinsic or extrinsic values, collapsing values that are more specific into these broader categories. Second, values tend to be least stable during early adulthood (i.e., approximately 18–22 years; Jin & Rounds, 2012), which was the average age of this sample. It has been hypothesized that this developmental period is particularly influential for the development of one’s work values because of a number of factors. During this time, many individuals are engaged in further learning opportunities, and additional education has been shown to affect one’s values, with intrinsic work values becoming more important (Cherrington, Condie, & England, 1979). Additionally, the early adult years is a time of much personal growth, including increasing autonomy and character building and making choices about personal relationships and work that are anticipated as enduring areas of one’s identity (Arnett, 2000). Given that the majority of individuals in this sample were in this developmental stage, it is likely individual growth both characterologically and professionally, affected the stability of their work values. Moreover, participants were assessed during a transitional period of career development (e.g., during educational training or job seeking), which may have affected the stability of their results as these experiences likely influenced their career goals and expectations, regardless of their age or developmental stage.

Limitations and Future Directions

Overall limitations of the sample warrant discussion. A limitation of the current study was that although a wide range of individuals from different ages participated, the mean age of both women and men was in the early adulthood years, which has been suggested to be the period of least stability in work values (Jin & Rounds, 2012). Further investigation of the stability of SWVI-R scores with samples of individuals from a greater age range may provide results that are more definitive about the overall stability of SWVI-R scores across time and age. Additional research addressing these demographic concerns can also help clarify if the current results were because of lower mean age of the current sample or reflective of the lower stability of SWVI-R scores in general.

The current results were based on a sample of individuals in career transition versus results from sample of employed individuals, as were data on the stability of MIQ scores (e.g., Gay et al., 1971), which may have affected the stability of values for the current sample. Investigations that include individuals in different stages of career development may be able to provide some support for this hypothesis and provide evidence of generalizabilty of the results or clarify if the current findings are limited to this specific sample. Finally, the sample consisted of individuals willing to complete the assessment a second time. Information about the differences between those selecting to retake the assessment and those choosing not to retake the assessment were not available. It is possible that these two groups vary in some way that affects the current results. Replication of the current study with attention to gathering more information on participants is needed to explore this possibility.

Given that no other study has looked at the stability of SWVI-R scores, the value of these preliminary study results outweigh the limitations of the data with recognition that further research is needed to bolster the veracity of the current results. Besides improvement on the information available on the sample characteristics and recruitment of a larger age range of participants, additional study designs may also improve the study of the stability of SWVI-R value scores. Research that compares the stability of MIQ and SWVI-R scores with one sample can shed light on the stability of SWVI-R scores relative to other assessments. Examination of possible events that may affect value stability, such as periods of unemployment, life events (e.g., additional education, career changes), and acculturation should be conducted as well. Also, more sophisticated statistical analyses can provide richer information to assess the stability of SWVI-R scores. Although not appropriate for use with the data available for the current project, given the lack of access to item-level data, the use of confirmatory factor analysis would allow for examination of the consistency of the factor structure (e.g., scales) of the SWVI-R across time and provide more nuanced information about the stability of scores.

Based on the study findings, examination of the stability and changes in values for men and women in different occupational groups is needed. Initial evidence from Hagström and Kjellberg (2007) on this issue found that the stability of work values did vary slightly differently for male and female nurses versus engineers, although not significantly so, over a period of approximately 4 years. Different occupations may likely experience different changes in the occupational tasks over time, such as the field of computer science has seen in the past few decades, where other occupations, such as those within the service industry, have experienced fewer remarkable changes to the nature of the work. It is possible that these changes could affect the values of workers in these fields and may even affect the tasks completed by women and men differently. Investigations of occupational groups would allow for increased understanding of the stability of work values by sex and by occupation.

Implications for Counselors

There are a few acceptable work values assessments available in addition to the SWVI-R, such as the MIQ (Rounds et al., 1981) and the O*Net Work Importance Profiler (WIP; McCloy et al., 1999)—which was developed from the MIQ—allowing counselors some flexibility in deciding which assessment is most appropriate for use with their clients. Among available assessments, the SWVI-R does offer some advantages for use. Although research on the newly revised version SWVI is still sparse, existing evidence suggests that it has favorable psychometric properties, such as adequate evidence of construct validity (see Robinson & Betz, 2008; Zytowski, 2006). Hammond, Betz, Multon, and Irvin (2010) also found acceptable evidence of validity for SWVI-R scores for an African American sample. Thus, there is support for using the SWVI-R with clients presenting with career concerns. However, given the current results, practitioners must recognize that clients’ values assessed with the SWVI-R may change with time, suggesting their values on the SWVI-R may need repeat assessment if there are significant delays between administration of the assessment and use of the data for career decision making.

Furthermore, when deciding what work values assessment to incorporate into career counseling, counselors should consider the effects of different measurement strategies. Discussion of the measurement of values suggests that the manner of assessment (e.g., rating, ranking, or paired comparison) can affect individuals’ testing experience and resulting data (see Leuty, 2013, for a review). For instance, ranking values may present challenges and create frustration for clients that evaluate the importance of more than one value being equal. Paired-comparison methods, such as those used on the MIQ and O*Net’s WIP, simplify the ranking procedure by having individuals choose the preferred value in pairs, overcoming the issue of values being of equal importance. However, paired-comparison methods require that all possible combinations of pairs of values be presented. With longer lists of values, the resulting number of pairs can create a burden on clients and increase fatigue (Dawis, 1987). The rating of values by using Likert-type scaling resolves the issues of ranking and paired-comparison methods but may present other problems, such as acquiescence (see McCarty & Shrum, 2000; Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). Acquiescence, typically resulting in all values being rated highly, can make it difficult to isolate which values are truly salient to an individual’s career decision making and may be a particular issue in some cultures (Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). Therefore, SWVI-R, employing a rating method, may be best used with clients who have some ability to discriminate between values to identify which ones are more important but are also likely to become frustrated with ranking or paired-comparison procedures. Additionally, the use of a rating scale may allow for quicker administration than ranking and paired-comparison methods, making the SWVI-R attractive for use when time constraints may be an issue.

The content of the SWVI-R also offers some advantages over other available assessments. Unlike the MIQ and O*Net’s WIP, the SWVI-R provides information on the importance of having a job that allows for a preferred lifestyle (Lifestyle scale) and the importance of having challenging work tasks (Challenge scale). The inclusion of both of these scales can provide particularly useful data for counselors. The importance of assessing the need for work–life balance is highlighted in research on the SWVI-R. In college student samples that included European American students as well as ethnic minority populations (e.g., Asian and African American students), Robinson and Betz (2008) found that Lifestyle was rated as the most important value. Hammond et al. (2010) found that Lifestyle was rated as the fourth most important value among the 12 values assessed on the SWVI-R. Data from the current study also show Lifestyle being the most important value, suggesting that the importance of having time for leisure is highly salient to young adults and should be considered when assessing work values in this population. Identifying that a client’s most important value is feeling that his or her job allows for time for leisure activities can assist counselors in exploring a client’s motivation to pursue occupations that balance work and life demands. Discussing with clients the implications of choosing a career path that allows for more leisure time, at the possible expense of not matching one’s skills, interests, or other values, would likely be very productive in helping clients be informed in their career decision-making process. Moreover, understanding the importance of time off for some clients may increase client insight into sources of low job satisfaction if this value was not reinforced in previous jobs.

Current information on the stability of work values is still in its infancy, and further research on this topic is needed in general in addition to research specific to the stability of SWVI-R scores over time. When the goal of career counseling is to increase one’s job satisfaction, research findings illustrate the importance of considering work values, as the congruence between one’s work values and the work environment predict both job satisfaction and tenure (Dawis, 2005; Rounds, 1990). Super (1990) also notes that values may influence the salience of different life roles, such as the importance of the role of worker. Therefore, values assessment also may help address hypotheses about work motivation in some clients and facilitate meaningful discussion about the importance of work in one’s life. Thus, practitioners should not be dissuaded from using the SWVI-R with clients, as the assessment of work values is an integral part of through-career interventions, and the SWVI-R can offer useful information about areas of importance for clients.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful for the assistance of Donald G. Zytowski in the conceptualization of this research and for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Melanie E. Leuty is an Assistant Professor in Counseling Psychology at the University of Southern Mississippi. Her research interests include issues related to work values, person-environment fit, career choice and development, and vocational assessment.

References

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480.

Bardi

Goodwin

(2011). The dual route to value change: Individual processes and cultural moderators. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 271–287. doi: 10.1177/0022022110396916

Bardi

Lee

J. A.

Hofmann-Towfigh

Soutar

(2009). The structure of intraindividual value change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 913–929. doi:10.1037/a0016617

Bennett

Stadt

(1997). Values preferences by gender for nontraditional college students between 1992 and 1982. Counseling and Values, 41, 246–252.

Beutell

N. J.

Brenner

O. C.

(1986). Sex differences in values. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28, 29–41.

Brown

S. D.

Ryan Krane

N. E.

(2000). Four (or five) sessions and a cloud of dust: Old assumptions and new observations about career counseling. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 740–766). New York, NY: Wiley.

Brown

S. D.

Ryan Krane

N. E.

Brecheisen

Castelino

Budisin

Miller

Edens

(2003). Critical ingredients of career choice interventions: More analyses and new hypotheses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 411–428. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00052-0

Cherrington

D. J.

Condie

S. J.

England

J. L.

(1979). Age and work values. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 617–623.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

10.

Dawis

R. V.

(1987). Scale construction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 481–489. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.34.4.481

11.

Dawis

R. V.

(2005). The Minnesota theory of work adjustment. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 3–23). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

12.

Eberts

R. W.

(2011). When will US employment recover from the Great Recession? International Labor Brief, 9, 4–12. Retrieved from http://research.upjohn.org/perarticles/33/

13.

Furr

R. M.

(2010). The double-entry intraclass correlation as an index of profile similarity: Meaning, limitations, and alternatives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 1–15. doi:10.1080/00223890903379134

14.

Gay

E. G.

Weiss

D. J.

Hendel

D. D.

Dawis

R. V.

Lofquist

L. H.

(1971). Manual for the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire (Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, Vol. 28). Minneapolis: Work Adjustment Project, University of Minnesota.

15.

Gorsuch

R. L.

Lehmann

C. S.

(2010). Correlation coefficients: Mean bias and confidence interval distortions. Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 1, 52–65.

16.

Gribbons

W. D.

Lohnes

P. R.

(1965). Shifts in adolescents’ vocational values. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 44, 248–252.

17.

Hagström

Kjellberg

(2007). Stability and change in work values among male and female nurses and engineers. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48, 143–151. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00576.x

18.

Hammond

M. S.

Betz

N. E.

Multon

K. D.

Irvin

(2010). Super’s Work Values Inventory–Revised scale validation for African Americans. Journal of Career Assessment, 18, 266–275. doi:10.1177/1069072710364792

19.

Hansen

J. C.

(2005). Assessment of interests. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.). Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 281–304). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

20.

Hartung

(2005). Integrated career assessment and counseling: Mindsets, models, and methods. In Walsh

W. B.

Savickas

M. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology (3rd ed., pp. 371–396). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

21.

Hendel

D. D.

Weiss

D. J.

(1970). Individual inconsistency and reliability of measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 579–593.

22.

Hitlin

Paliavin

J. A.

(2004). Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 359–593. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110640

23.

Hofstede

(1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

24.

Jin

Rounds

(2012). Stability and change in work values: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 326–339. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.10.007

25.

Johnson

M. K.

(2001). Job values in the young adult transition: Change and stability with age. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64, 297–317.

26.

Johnson

M. K.

(2002). Social origins, adolescent experiences, and work value trajectories during the transition to adulthood. Social Forces, 80, 1307–1341.

27.

Kapes

J. T.

Strickler

R. E.

(1975). A longitudinal study of change in work values between ninth and twelfth grades as related to high school curriculum. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 6, 81–93.

28.

Konrad

A. M.

Ritchie

J. E.

Jr. Lieb

Corrigall

(2000). Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 593–641.

29.

Leuty

M. E.

(2013). Assessment of needs and values. In Geisinger

K. F.

(Ed.), APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology: vol. 2. Testing and assessment in clinical and counseling psychology (pp. 363-377). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

30.

Lindsay

Knox

W. E.

(1984). Continuity and change in work values among young adults: A longitudinal study. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 918–931.

31.

Loo

Thorpe

(2005). Relationships between attitudes toward women’s roles in society, and work and life values. Social Science Journal, 42, 367–374.

32.

Low

K. S. D.

Yoon

Roberts

B. W.

Rounds

(2005). The stability of vocational interests from early adolescence to middle adulthood: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 713–737.

33.

Marini

M. M.

Fan

Finley

Beutel

A. M.

(1996). Gender and job values. Sociology of Education, 69, 49–65.

34.

McCarty

J. A.

Shrum

L. J.

(2000). The measurement of personal values in survey research: A test of alternative rating procedures. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 271–298.

35.

McCloy

Waugh

Medsker

Wall

Rivkin

Lewis

(1999). Development of the O*NET computerized Work Importance Profiler. Raleigh, NC: National Center for O*NET Development. Retrieved from http://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/DevCWIP.pdf

36.

McCrae

R. R.

(2008). A note on some measures of profile agreement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 105–109. doi:10.1080/00223 890701845104

37.

MOW International Research Team. (1987). The meaning of working. London, England; Academic Press.

38.

Neil

C. C.

Snizek

W. E.

(1987). Work values, job characteristics, and gender. Sociological Perspectives, 30, 245–265.

39.

Pryor

R. G.

(1983). Manual for the Work Aspect Preference Scale: 1983 version. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: NSW Department of Industrial Relations.

40.

Ralston

D. A.

Egri

C. P.

Reynaud

Srinivasan

Furrer

Brock

Wallace

(2011). A twenty-first century assessment of values across the global workforce. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 1–31. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0835-8

41.

Roberts

B. W.

DelVecchio

W. F.

(2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3–25.

42.

Robinson

C. H.

Betz

N. E.

(2008). A psychometric evaluation of Super’s Work Values Inventory–Revised. Journal of Career Assessment, 16, 456–473.

43.

Roe

R. A.

Ester

(1999). Values at work: Empirical findings and theoretical perspective. Applied Psychology, 48, 1–21.

44.

Rohan

M. J.

(2000). A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 255–277.

45.

Rokeach

(1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press.

46.

Ros

Schwartz

S. H.

Surkiss

(1999). Basic individual values, work values, and the meaning of work. Applied Psychology, 48, 49–71.

47.

Rounds

J. B.

(1990). The comparative and combined utility of work value and interest data in career counseling with adults. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 32–45.

48.

Rounds

J. B.

Armstrong

P. I.

(2005). Assessment of needs and values. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 305–329). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

49.

Rounds

J. B.

Henly

G. A.

Dawis

R. V.

Lofquist

L. H.

Weiss

D. J.

(1981). Manual for the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire: A measure of vocational needs and values. Minneapolis: Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota.

50.

Rowe

Snizek

W. E.

(1995). Gender differences in work values: Perpetuating the myth. Work and Occupations, 22, 215–229.

51.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

52.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.

53.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems. In Seligman

Olson

J. M.

Zanna

M. P.

(Eds.), The Ontario symposium: The psychology of values (Vol. 8, pp. 1–24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

54.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology, 48, 23–47.

55.

Schwartz

S. H.

Bardi

(2001). Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 268–290. doi:10.1177/0022022101032003002

56.

Schwartz

S. H.

Bilsky

(1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550–562.

57.

Schwartz

S. H.

Boehnke

(2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 230–255.

58.

Super

D. E.

(1957). The psychology of careers. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

59.

Super

D. E.

(1970). Work Values Inventory: Manual. Chicago, IL: Riverside.

60.

Super

D. E.

(1973). The Work Values Inventory. In Zytowski

(Ed.), Contemporary approaches to interest measurement (pp. 189–205). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

61.

Super

D. E.

(1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. In Brown

Brooks

(Eds.), Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theories to practice (2nd ed., pp. 197–261). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

62.

Terracciano

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

(2010). Intra-individual change in personality and stability and age. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 31–37. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.006

63.

Twenge

J. M.

Campbell

S. M.

Hoffman

B. J.

Lance

C. E.

(2010). Generational difference in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36, 1117–1142. doi:10.1177/0149206309352246

64.

Zaccaria

Jacobs

Creaser

Klehr

(1972). Work values of college-bound students. Psychological Reports, 31, 567–569.

65.

Zytowski

D. G.

(1994). A super contribution to vocational theory: Work values. Career Development Quarterly, 43, 25–31.

66.

Zytowski

D. G.

(2006). Super’s Work Values Inventory–Revised: User’s manual. Retrieved from http://www.kuder.com/solutions/kuderassessments.html#supers_work_values_inventory

Stability of Scores on Super’s Work Values Inventory–Revised

Abstract

Keywords

Stability of Work Values

Method

Participants

Measurement

Analyses

Results

Mean-Level Stability of SWVI-R Scale Scores

Stability of SWVI-R Scale Scores

Stability of SWVI-R Raw Scale Scores

Stability of SWVI-R Rank Order Scale Scores

Individual Profile Stability of SWVI-R Scale Scores

Discussion

Limitations and Future Directions

Implications for Counselors

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Author Biography

References