Understanding Career Aspirations Among Young Women

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to improve an instrument used to assess career aspirations (the Career Aspiration Scale), so the revised measure can be used with confidence in research and practice. Items were added to the existing two scales (educational and leadership aspirations) to enhance reliability. In addition, items assessing a third construct of importance to the operationalization of career aspiration (i.e., achievement aspiration) were developed for inclusion in the revised measure. Three studies to assess the psychometric properties of the Career Aspiration Scale–Revised (CAS-R) were conducted with a total of 583 undergraduate and graduate women. The results of confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the three-factor solution assessing achievement, leadership, and educational aspirations had good model fit. Support also was found for the reliability and validity of the CAS-R when used with undergraduate and graduate women. Suggestions for future research and practice using this measure are provided.

Keywords

career aspiration leadership achievement women’s career development

Vocational psychologists have yet to explain fully one of the most pressing problems facing our society—the underrepresentation of women in many careers and in leadership positions. Despite the impressive advances made by women in the United States workforce, women remain concentrated in low-status, low-prestige occupations (Landiver, 2013; United States Census, 2010). Numerous studies, including those focused on gifted women, indicate that women have lower career aspirations when compared to men and often select more traditional, less lucrative careers that underutilize their abilities (Ferriman, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2009; Kerr, Foley-Nicpon, & Zapata, 2005; O’Brien, Friedman, Tipton, & Linn, 2000). Women also remain vastly underrepresented in leadership positions, even in fields historically dominated by women (e.g., women hold 75% of all teaching positions but only 30% of educational leadership roles; Lennon, 2013). Research that addresses women’s career aspirations, and the measurement of this salient construct, has potential for promoting vocational achievement and plans for leadership among young women. Thus, the purpose of this study was to improve a measure of career aspiration currently used with female undergraduate and graduate students, the Career Aspiration Scale (CAS).

In the past, women’s future plans were categorized as being either career or family focused. More recently, career aspirations were measured as the degree to which a specific career choice was nonprestigious or prestigious and traditional or nontraditional (Farmer, 1985; O’Brien & Fassinger, 1993). In her study on causal models of career choice in college women, Fassinger (1990) argued that operationalizing career choices in these ways failed to address the degree of achievement to which women aspire within their chosen career. For example, a woman may select a traditionally female career such as nursing and aspire to obtain a doctoral degree, so she can conduct medical research or teach at the university level. Even today, some researchers use a single item to assess career aspiration, that is, the careers to which participants aspire are obtained and then coded for level of prestige (Beal & Crockett, 2013).

Clearly, instruments are needed to capture the complex nature of career aspirations for women. To address this need, O’Brien (1996) developed the 10-item CAS to assess the degree to which individuals aspire to leadership positions and further education within their career. The psychometric properties of the CAS were examined in five studies with various populations of women including college undergraduates, high school seniors, post-high school women, and female Mexican American high school seniors (Gray & O’Brien, 2007). Support emerged for an 8-item two-factor solution that included leadership aspirations (seeking leadership and training/managing others in one’s career) and educational aspirations (planning to pursue advanced education related to one’s career). The CAS correlated with occupational and multiple role self-efficacy, relative importance of career versus family, and attitudes toward women’s roles (Gray & O’Brien, 2007). However, the reliability coefficients obtained for the subscales were low to moderate—perhaps due to the small number of items (6 on leadership aspirations and 2 on educational aspirations). Despite this limitation, the CAS was used widely in the vocational literature (e.g., Choi, 2003; Fisher, Gushue, & Cerrone, 2011; Laschinger et al., 2013; Rainey & Borders, 1997; Strauss, Griffin, & Parker, 2012; Thompson & Dahling, 2010; Woo & Lee, 2010) as the measure filled the need for a more complex and multidimensional measurement of career aspirations.

The purpose of this study was to revise the CAS to improve the psychometric properties of the scale. First, additional items were added to enhance the reliability of the measure. Second, the operationalization of career aspiration was expanded as O’Brien’s initial scale was missing a salient component of aspiration, that is, the desire to be one of the very best in one’s field or recognized for one’s accomplishments, which we labeled as achievement aspiration. Prior research using the CAS found that a significant amount of variance was not accounted for by the measure in the prediction of salient outcome variables. We hypothesized that this occurred in part because the CAS did not assess the entire domain of aspiration, as the measure failed to capture the goals of highly motivated women who wanted to excel or “be the best” in their career but were not interested in continuing education or leadership positions. The inclusion of achievement aspirations on a measure of career aspiration is supported by McClelland’s achievement motivation theory (1961). Achievement motivation has been defined as the desire to accomplish something of value or importance through efforts to meet standards of excellence (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953) and has been linked to the development of goals, effort expended, and success in chosen vocational activities (McClelland, 1961; McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982). This construct differs from leadership and educational aspirations as they assess more specific aims that are related to but not focused on superior achievement or excellence (i.e., the desire to lead or train others and plans for obtaining advanced instruction).

This study was grounded in the Expectancy-Value Model of Achievement Choice (Eccles, 1987; 2011; Eccles et al., 1983). According to this model, the values of the individual influence the tasks that they choose to pursue. With regard to occupations, people will pursue careers that are of value to them and in which they think they will be successful. Gender role socialization plays a significant role in both the valuing of the career and the perception of future success. In American society, women continue to be primarily responsible for family, children, and home (Askari, Liss, Erchull, Staebell, & Axelson, 2010; Sayer & Fine, 2010). Thus, career development and choice for women often necessitates contemplation of how to manage both work and family (in ways that most men are not expected to consider). For many women, career aspirations often relate to the degree to which they value work and the degree to which they value raising children. Societal expectations lead many women to feel that they must choose or if they value both, they must compromise their career aspirations for family. In this study, we operationalized this valuing of work as work role salience (WRS) and the valuing of family as reflected in willingness to compromise career for family, and we hypothesized that these constructs would relate to career aspiration.

Specifically, work role salience was defined as the centrality of career/work in one’s adult life (Almquist & Angrist, 1971) and predicted both career commitment and intended career path in past research (Aryee & Tan, 1992; McClintock-Comeaux, 2007). In this study, we expected women who placed a high value on work to have high career aspirations. In addition, compromising career for family and partner was defined as the willingness to adjust one’s career plans to prioritize the needs of their children or partner (Ganginis Del Pino, O’Brien, Mereish, & Miller, 2013). Women often are willing to alter their career plans in anticipation of responsibilities associated with future children and families (Mark & Houston, 2002; O’Brien et al., 2000). For this research, we hypothesized that women who were willing to compromise their career for their children or partners likely would have lower career aspirations than those women who are unwilling to make these compromises.

Thus, the overall purposes of this study were to develop a revised version of the CAS that could be used with both undergraduate and graduate student women and to test the psychometric properties of the new measure. First, additional items were developed and added to the original leadership and educational aspirations subscales of the CAS. Second, items assessing achievement aspirations were generated and included in the revised measure (the Career Aspiration Scale–Revised; CAS-R). Finally, the psychometric properties of this instrument were examined in three separate studies.

Study 1

The purpose of the first study was to analyze the factor structure of the CAS-R with a sample of undergraduate women and assess the reliability and construct validity of the revised measure. Consistent with prior research and our addition of a third scale, we hypothesized that the three-factor structure would display good model fit. Adequate reliability estimates (above .70) were expected for the subscales. We anticipated that scores on the CAS-R subscales would correlate positively with work role salience and negatively with willingness to compromise career for future family (as women who have high career aspirations are likely to be oriented toward paid employment and less likely to alter their careers in anticipation of future family).

Method

Participants

Data were collected from 330 female undergraduate psychology majors at a large mid-Atlantic university. There were no missing data, however two outliers were removed because they were more than three standard deviations (SDs) from the CAS-R mean. The final sample consisted of 328 undergraduate females, representing all years of study, with an average age of 19.52 (SD = 1.82). The majority of participants were White, non-Hispanic (60.1%), with 13.7% being Asian/Asian American, 13.4% African American, 5.8% Hispanic, 3.4% biracial, 0.3% American Indian, and 3.4% other, which was representative of the undergraduate students enrolled at this university. The majority of students were heterosexual (96.3%), single (never married; 94.8%), and not in a committed relationship (56.7%). The majority of participants planned to get married or be in a committed relationship in the future (88.7%).

Procedure

The measures were administered in a survey that undergraduate students can complete for extra credit in their courses. The survey includes measures from graduate student and faculty investigators within the Department of Psychology. Alternative methods for obtaining extra credit were provided, and all undergraduate students in psychology were eligible to participate.

Measures

Career aspiration

The original CAS was an 8-item scale to assess career aspiration (including educational and leadership aspirations; O’Brien, 1996). Items on the original measure were rated on 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (not at all true of me) to 4 (very true of me).

To generate new items for the CAS-R to enhance reliability and add an achievement aspiration subscale, the investigators first defined three components of career aspiration including leadership aspiration (leadership roles and training/managing others in one’s career), educational aspiration (advanced education, training, and competency in one’s career), and achievement aspiration (recognition, responsibility, and promotion in one’s career).

The first author (a doctoral student), her advisor (a professor of counseling psychology), and a research team comprised of graduate and undergraduate students in psychology independently generated new items for all three subscales. The items were reviewed by the first author and her advisor, and items were removed if they were conceptually redundant or confusing. Seven of the items from the original CAS were retained (5 from leadership aspiration and 1 from educational aspiration). An additional 26 items were developed, which resulted in 33 items on the total scale. The first author, her advisor, two psychologists, and an undergraduate student independently sorted the items into their respective domains and reviewed the items for clarity and representativeness of the domains. Additional edits were made based on the suggestions from these reviewers. Finally, a professor of education inspected the items for face validity and determined that all items had adequate face validity with the exception of 2 items (24 and 31). These items were retained but would be considered for deletion following the analyses.

Work role salience

The Work Role Salience (WRS) Scale–Short Form is a 6-item self-report measure developed by Greenhaus (1973) to assess attitudes toward work and career. Participants responded to items (e.g., “I would consider myself extremely career minded”) on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Responses were summed, with high scores indicating strong career salience. Prior research found support for reliability (α = .73) and validity, as the WRS was correlated with commitment to career (Diemer & Blustein, 2007). In the current study, the internal consistency reliability estimate was .66.

Willingness to compromise career for future family

The Planning for Career and Family Scale (PLAN; Ganginis Del Pino et al., 2013) is a 24-item measure consisting of two 12-item subscales that assess the degree to which individuals are willing to adjust their careers to prioritize the needs of their children (compromising career plans for children) and partner (prioritizing partner). Participants were asked to rate items on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), and the items were then summed with high scores indicating the willingness to compromise for children’s and partner’s needs when thinking about their careers. Example items include “I will not select a career that leaves me feeling overwhelmed and too tired to enjoy my children” and “I will take a job that I find less satisfying if it means having more time for my partner.” Support for the reliability (α = .86 and .84, respectively) and validity were found, and both scales related negatively to career orientation (Ganginis Del Pino et al., 2013). In this study, the subscales had adequate reliability, compromising career plans for children (α = .90) and prioritizing partner (α = .89).

Demographic questionnaire

Data were collected regarding age, race, gender, sexual orientation, year in college, future career plans, partnership status, and plans to be married or in a committed relationship.

Results

A statistical power analysis, using the guidelines set by MacCallum, Browne, and Sugawara (1996), indicated that 328 participants were adequate for a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a statistical power of 0.80, a model of close fit with 75 degrees of freedom, and an overall α = .05. An item response theory (IRT) maximum likelihood CFA was run using Mplus version 7.11 to examine the hypothesized three-factor model. Traditional factor analysis treats responses on the Likert-type scale as if they were measured at the interval level of analysis. The IRT-CFA approach converts ordinal-level measurement into interval-level data and conforms to the statistical assumptions of the CFA (Partchev, 2004).

To evaluate model fit, the recommendations proposed by Hu and Bentler (1999) were used (root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] values less than 0.10 and comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) values greater than or equal to 0.90). The fit indices were not adequate on the IRT-CFA with the 33-item measure (Satorra–Bentler [SB] χ² (94, N = 328) = 892.21, p < .05, RMSEA = 0.16, CFI = 0.77, and TLI = 0.93) and the reverse-coded items loaded poorly on two factors. Given that reverse coded items often load on their own factor (Schmitt & Stults, 1985), a methological factor consisting of the reverse-coded items was created and allowed to correlate with the original first and second factors (there were no reverse coded items on the third factor) to enhance fit.

Then, 3 items were removed because they loaded less than .4 on any of the three conceptual factors. The fit indices improved for the three-factor solution, but to shorten the scale for usability, additional items were removed. Six items with the lowest loadings on each factor or those that were conceptually redundant with other items were dropped. The final scale consisted of 24-items with 8 items representing each of the three subscales (see Table 1). Only 4 of the original items were retained on the revised measure. The 24-item model exhibited good model fit for undergraduate women: Satorra–Bentler χ²(241, N = 328) = 909.45, p < .05, RMSEA = 0.09 (.086, .098), CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94.

Table 1.

Factor Loadings From Study 1 and 2.

	Factor Loading
Item	Study 1	Study 2
Factor 1: Achievement aspiration
4: I want to be among the very best in my field	0.74	0.72
12: I want my work to have a lasting impact on my field	0.79	0.72
14: I aspire to have my contributions at work recognized by my employer	0.64	0.59
20: Being outstanding at what I do at work is very important to me	0.80	0.61
26: I know that I will be recognized for my accomplishments in my field	0.69	0.71
29^a: Achieving in my career is not at all important to me	−0.95	−0.91
30^a: Being one of the best in my field is not important to me	−0.79	−0.75
31: I plan to obtain many promotions in my organization or business	0.86	0.84
Factor 2: Leadership aspiration
1: I hope to become a leader in my career field	0.80	0.75
3^a: I do not plan to devote energy to getting promoted to a leadership position in the organization or business in which I am working	−0.94	−0.76
7^a: Becoming a leader in my job is not at all important to me	−1.13	−0.85
9: When I am established in my career, I would like to manage other employees	0.71	0.66
11: I want to have responsibility for the future direction of my organization or business	0.83	0.81
19^a: Attaining leadership status in my career is not that important to me	−1.17	−0.98
22: I hope to move up to a leadership position in my organization or business	0.89	0.93
33: I plan to rise to the top leadership position of my organization or business	0.89	0.90
Factor 3: Educational aspiration
10: I plan to reach the highest level of education in my field	0.74	0.57
16: I will pursue additional training in my occupational area of interest	0.83	0.77
18: I will always be knowledgeable about recent advances in my field	0.75	0.76
21: I know I will work to remain current regarding knowledge in my field	0.86	0.83
23: I will attend conferences annually to advance my knowledge	0.80	0.67
27: Even if not required, I would take continuing education courses to become more knowledgeable	0.76	0.70
28: I would pursue an advanced education program to gain specialized knowledge in my field	0.80	0.73
32: Every year, I will prioritize involvement in continuing education to advance my career	0.80	0.77

Note. The measures can be obtained from author and used for free for research or counseling purposes.

^aReverse coded item.

The means, SDs, ranges, and reliability estimates for the scales and their correlations can be found in Table 2. The correlations between the factors were moderate to high (ranging from .61 to .71), and the subscales demonstrated good reliability (achievement = .81, leadership = .87, and education = .90). Consistent with our hypotheses, the CAS-R subscales were related positively to work role salience, indicating that women who reported that career was important to them had higher levels of achievement, leadership, and educational aspirations. As hypothesized, willingness to compromise career for future children was related negatively to leadership aspiration, suggesting that women who were willing to make career sacrifices for their children were less likely to want to pursue leadership positions in their future careers. However, willingness to compromise career for future children was not related to educational or achievement aspirations. Also, contrary to our hypotheses, willingness to compromise career for future partner was related positively to achievement aspiration and educational aspiration indicating that women who were willing to sacrifice their career for their partner were more likely to want be the best in their field and to continue their education. However, compromising one’s career for their partner was unrelated to interest in leadership positions in a future career.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, αs, and Correlations for Measures in Study 1.

Measures	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. CAS-R: Achievement	1
2. CAS-R: Leadership	.69**	1
3. CAS-R: Education	.71**	.61**	1
4. Work role salience	.50**	.39**	.56**	1
5. PLAN: Children	−.02	−.12*	.04	−.14**	1
6. PLAN: Partner	.21**	.07	.24**	−.36**	.49**	1
Mean	24.32	22.74	21.65	15.05	31.28	34.10
SD	5.31	6.47	6.51	3.67	8.53	7.97
Actual range	11–32	6–32	3–32	6–25	12–60	13–60
Possible range	0–32	0–32	0–32	6–30	13–60	12–60
α	.81	.87	.90	.66	.90	.89

Note. CAS-R = Career Aspiration Scale–Revised; PLAN = Planning for Career and Family Scale.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Study 2

The second study investigated the stability of the factor structure and the psychometric properties of the revised measure with a sample of female graduate students. We anticipated that the factor structure that emerged in Study 1 would be replicated in a second, independent sample. Adequate reliability estimates were expected (above .70). Additionally, we predicted that the CAS-R subscales would correlate positively with achievement motivation and work role salience and negatively with willingness to compromise career for future family. Women who have high career aspirations are likely to work hard to master skills and prioritize career-related pursuits and less likely to compromise their career for their future family.

Method

Participants

The data were obtained from an existing data set of 202 female graduate students for a study on leadership aspirations among counseling and clinical graduate students (Gregor & O'Brien, 2015). There were no missing data, however three outliers were removed because their scores extended beyond three SDs from the mean of the CAS-R. The final sample consisted of 199 participants who represented all years of doctoral study. The average age of participants was 28.11 (SD = 4.78), and most participants were heterosexual (87.9%), in a committed relationship (72.4%), and without children (88.9%). The sample was mostly White non-Hispanic (74.9%), with 9.5% reporting as Asian or Asian American, 6.0% African American, 4.0% Hispanic, 3.0% biracial, 0.5% American Indian, and 2.0% other. The women who participated were representative of graduate students in psychology in terms of age, ethnicity, and sexual orientation (American Psychological Association Center for Workforce Studies, 2010).

Measures

The same measures that were administered in the first study were included in the second study and reliability estimates were adequate (Work Role Salience = .67, Compromising Career for Children = .95, and Prioritizing Partner = .90). In addition, the Work and Family Orientation Questionnaire (WOFO) was included and a slightly modified demographics form was utilized.

Achievement motivation

The Work and Family Orientation Questionnaire (WOFO; Spence & Helmreich, 1983) is a 19-item measure that assesses achievement motivation (work, mastery, and competitiveness). The Work–Mastery subscale consists of 14 items (e.g., there is satisfaction in a job well done, or if I am not good at something, I would rather keep struggling to master it than move on to something I may be good at). The Competitive Scale consists of 5 items (e.g., I try harder when I’m in competition with other people). Participants responded to items on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) with high scores indicating satisfaction, commitment, and competitiveness at work.

Prior research found adequate reliability for the two subscales (Work–Mastery α = .80 and Competitiveness α = .76) and support for validity as work–mastery-oriented students were less likely to adopt work avoidance goals and more likely to adopt mastery goals (Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997). In this study, the subscales were found to have adequate reliability, that is, Work–Mastery (α = .79) and Competitiveness (α = .85).

Results

The means, SDs, ranges, and reliability estimates for the scales and their correlations can be found in Table 3. We conducted a maximum likelihood CFA to examine the three-factor model using Mplus version 7.11. The 24-item three-factor model demonstrated good fit with graduate student women, SB χ²(241, n = 202) = 617.02, p < .05, RMSEA = 0.09, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92. The factor loadings can be found in Table 1. The correlations among factors ranged from .49 to .70.

Table 3.

Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, αs, and Correlations for Measures in Study 2.

Measures	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. CAS-R: Achievement	1
2. CAS-R: Leadership	.70**	1
3. CAS-R: Education	.64**	.49**	1
4. WOFO: Work	.42**	.41**	.40**	1
5. WOFO: Compete	.34**	.24**	.15*	.15*	1
6. Work role salience	.51**	.40**	.47**	.46**	.13	1
7. PLAN: Children	−.08	−.04	−.09	−.09	.09	−.38**	1
8. PLAN: Partner	−.26**	−.24**	−.21**	−.28**	.03	−.52**	.49**	1
Mean	23.42	22.01	24.91	53.24	14.61	21.81	35.23	42.32
SD	5.10	6.46	4.78	6.24	4.58	3.40	11.01	8.23
Actual range	8–32	3–32	9–32	33–67	5–25	11–30	12–58	15–60
Possible range	0–32	0–32	0–32	14–70	5–25	6–30	12–60	12–60
α	.82	.89	.85	.79	.85	.67	.95	.90

Note. CAS-R = Career Aspiration Scale–Revised; WOFO = Work and Family Orientation Questionnaire; PLAN = Planning for Career and Family Scale.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

As hypothesized, scores on the leadership, education, and achievement subscales were related positively to scores on the achievement motivation and Work Role Salience subscales, suggesting that women who were more likely to work hard and value their career were more likely to want to lead others, desire recognition in their career, and further their education in their field. Additionally, as hypothesized, the subscales of the CAS-R were related negatively to willingness to prioritize partner, indicating that participants who were more likely to sacrifice their career for their partner were less likely to be interested in attaining leadership positions, being the best in their field or continuing education in their future careers. However, contrary to our hypotheses, there were no relationships among willingness to sacrifice career for children and aspirations for leadership, achievement, or education.

Study 3

The purpose of the third study was to assess the test–retest reliability of the CAS-R and to investigate further the psychometric properties of the measure for use with college women. Test–retest reliability estimates above .70 were expected and the subscales were hypothesized to correlate positively with work role salience and career orientation, as women who have high career aspirations are likely to view work as being salient in their lives and are likely to be oriented toward a career.

Method

Procedure

During the last 10 minutes of an advanced-level undergraduate psychology course, a research assistant invited students to participate in a survey related to career goals that would be administered twice, the second time in 2 weeks. Those who participated received 0.5 extra credit.

Participants

Sixty female undergraduate participants completed CAS-R at Time 1. Four participants were deleted due to incomplete data (missing Time 2). The final sample consisted of 56 undergraduate females, mean age = 21.9 (SD = 3.04). The majority of participants were White, non-Hispanic (67.9%), with 10.7% being African American, 7.1% biracial/multiracial, 5.4% Asian/Asian American, 5.4% Hispanic and Latina, and 3.6% other. Most participants identified as heterosexual (94.7%) and were not in committed relationships (57.9%). The majority of participants were seniors (75.4%) and psychology majors (100%). Most participants had decided on a career (66.7%), and the majority of participants stated that career pursuits and family pursuits were equally important (59.6%). Interestingly, only one participant believed that career pursuits were more important than family but that family was important too.

Measures

The CAS-R (previously described) and a modified demographics form were administered.

Results

The means, SDs, ranges, and reliability estimates for the CAS-R for Time 1 and Time 2 can be found in Table 4. The three subscales of the CAS-R exhibited adequate reliability (Time 1: achievement = .74, leadership = .79, and education = .87; Time 2: achievement = .80, leadership = .82, and education = .84). The 2-week test–retest reliability estimates were as follows: achievement = .68, leadership = .81, and education = .81.

Table 4.

Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, αs, and Correlations for the CAS-R in Study 3.

Measures	1	2	3
1. CAS-R: Achievement	1	.59**	.64**
2. CAS-R: Leadership	.61**	1	.28*
3. CAS-R: Education	.55**	.35**	1
Time 1
Mean	25.77	23.40	22.67
SD	3.95	4.91	5.47
Actual range	14–32	13–32	12–32
Possible range	0–32	0–32	0–32
α	.74	.79	.87
Time 2
Mean	24.98	23.25	22.51
SD	4.68	5.17	5.24
Actual range	13–32	11–32	12–31
Possible range	0–32	0–32	0–32
α	.80	.82	.84

Note. Time 1 is above the diagonal and Time 2 is below the diagonal. CAS-R = Career Aspiration Scale–Revised.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Discussion

The results of this study provided support for the psychometric properties of the CAS-R when used with undergraduate and graduate samples comprised mainly of White, heterosexual women. CFA suggested good model fit for a three-factor solution comprised of leadership, achievement, and educational aspirations with two samples of women. The three subscales demonstrated adequate internal consistency reliability and test–retest reliability over a 2-week period. The validity of these subscales was supported through positive correlations with work role salience and achievement motivation.

This study contributed to the literature by providing a revised and psychometrically sound instrument to assess three components of career aspiration for young women. Support for validity of the subscales was found as women for whom work was important endorsed achievement, leadership, and further education aspirations in their future careers. Among graduate students, those women who valued hardwork and could be described as competitive and determined to master challenges desired leadership, achievement, and educational attainment in their careers. This is particularly helpful for validation of the CAS-R, given that the characteristics of achievement motivation mirror many of the characteristics of women who likely would have high career aspirations. Moreover, the findings were consistent with previous research noting associations between women’s career decisions and the importance of work (McClintock-Comeaux, 2007).

Contrary to our hypotheses, small positive associations were found between educational and achievement aspirations and willingness to sacrifice career for a partner for the undergraduate women. This pattern was not replicated with the graduate student women, and for those women, the expected negative relationship between career aspiration (on all three subscales) and willingness to compromise career for partner was found. Perhaps the undergraduate women believed that it is possible to obtain advanced education and achieve in one’s career while also compromising their career choices for their partner. The undergraduate women were relatively young and not in committed relationships and our measures may have tapped into young women’s (perhaps unrealistic) beliefs that they can “have it all.” On the other hand, participants may have been affected by social desirability. Young women may have felt pressure to endorse the desire to both achieve in their career and make sacrifices for their partner. Societal expectations that women should be both employed and prioritize family could be reflected in the graduate student responses.

Overall, no relationships were found between career aspirations and willingness to compromise their career for future children (with the exception of one very small negative relationship between leadership aspiration and willingness to compromise career for future children with the undergraduates). Perhaps women, across levels of aspiration, expected to make some career sacrifices for their future children. Again, it is important to note that the majority of women in the samples did not have children and would not understand fully the challenges associated with managing career, children, and partner.

The subscales, although correlated, assessed distinct aspects of career aspiration that could be useful in clinical and educational settings. For example, the achievement aspiration subscale enables researchers and therapists to determine the degree to which young women aspire to be one of the very best in their field or to be recognized for their work accomplishments. This subscale could assist educators to identify young women who are highly motivated to excel in their chosen careers for targeted interventions to encourage career success and address potential barriers to vocational achievement. Also, employers could link employees who score high on leadership aspirations with programs to develop leadership skills. Similarly, individuals who demonstrate a desire for further education could be provided with training opportunities to develop new skills and enhance their work-related knowledge.

It is important to note that although the women in the samples were representative of graduate and undergraduate students in general, they were mostly White heterosexual women. Thus, generalizability to other groups of women, and to men, is limited. Moreover, we did not give the measure to individuals in different stages of career development, particularly those who are employed. The CAS-R should be administered to more diverse samples, including women and men of color and employed adults to assess further the stability of the factor structure and the psychometric properties of the measure.

An additional limitation of this study was low reliability of the WRS measure, and future research should consider using the long form of the WRS or investigate other possible measures of this construct. Also, our study was limited by the measurement of career aspiration at a single point. Given that women’s career aspirations decline over time (Ferriman et al., 2009), longitudinal designs using the CAS-R are needed to better understand the factors that contribute to waning aspirations and also to investigate protective factors that may enhance or maintain high aspirations of young women. In fact, the CAS-R could be used in intervention research to identify girls and young women who have high (and low) aspirations and to test the efficacy of empirically supported interventions that confront societal barriers to vocational achievement.

Moreover, if the findings of the current study are replicated, the CAS-R has potential for use in career counseling in both school and workforce settings. Given that many students are evaluating their career options during middle and high school, the CAS-R could be administered along with interest inventories, to assess desire for achievement within particular careers. For younger populations, the CAS-R may be a useful tool to explore future goals, promote discussion, and identify barriers that may keep them from future achievement. It is possible that interventions with girls and young women could reverse the tendency to limit career options long before entering the workforce. For students struggling to make career choices in college, administration of the CAS-R could assist students to articulate their future dreams and enable counselors to intervene when students show little aspiration related to future careers. Counselors also could help college students navigate potential barriers to achieving their aspirations.

Additionally, the CAS-R could be of use with older adults who might be considering a career change. The CAS-R might illuminate if the new career will be consistent with their aspirations for leadership, achievement, or educational attainment and may help to clarify the individual’s desired goals. The administration of the CAS-R to employed women also could identify potential leaders for targeted intervention and career advancement.

To conclude, this study provided support for a psychometrically sound revised measure of career aspiration that assesses aspiration in three different domains—leadership, achievement, and education when used with mostly White, heterosexual undergraduate and graduate students. It is our hope that the CAS-R will be used by researchers to contribute to the understanding of the underrepresentation of women in many career fields and reverse the harmful trend of the underutilization of women’s potential contributions to society through paid employment. Counselors may use this measure to provide interventions that encourage and support occupational aspirations and vocational achievement for all.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

A previous version of this study was presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association.

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.

References

Almquist

E. M.

Angrist

S. S.

(1971). Role model influences on college women’s career aspirations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 17, 263–279.

American Psychological Association Center for Workforce Studies. (2010). APA Student Affiliate Survey. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/workforce/publications/08-student/tables.pdf

Aryee

Tan

(1992). Antecedents and outcomes of career commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 288–305. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(92)90052-2

Askari

S. F.

Liss

Erchull

M. J.

Staebell

S. E.

Axelson

S. J.

(2010). Men want equality, but women don’t expect it: Young adults’ expectations for participation in household and child care chores. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 243–252. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01565.x

Beal

S. J.

Crockett

L. J.

(2013). Adolescents’ occupational and educational goals: A test of reciprocal relations. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34, 219–229. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2013.04.005

Choi

. (2003). Influential factors on college women’s career aspiration. Unpublished master’s thesis. Ewha Women’s University, Seoul, Korea.

Diemer

M. A.

Blustein

D. L.

(2007). Vocational hope and vocational identity: Urban adolescents career development. Journal of Career Assessment, 15, 98–118. doi:10.1177/1069072706294528

Eccles

J. S.

(1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 135–172.

Eccles

J. S.

(2011). Gendered educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 195–201. doi:10.1177/0165025411398185

10.

Eccles

J. S.

Adler

T. F.

Futterman

Goff

S. B.

Kaczala

C. M.

Meece

J. L.

Midglev

(1983). Expectations, values and academic behaviors. In Spence

J. T.

(Ed.), Perspective on achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75–146). San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.

11.

Farmer

H. S.

(1985). Model of career and achievement motivation for women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 363–390. doi:10.1037//0022-0167.32.3.363

12.

Fassinger

R. E.

(1990). Causal models of career choice in two samples of college women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 225–248. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(90)90029-2

13.

Ferriman

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2009). Work preferences, life values, and personal views of top math/science graduate students and the profoundly gifted: Developmental changes and gender differences during emerging adulthood and parenthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 517–532. doi:10.1037/a0016030

14.

Fisher

L. D.

Gushue

G. V.

Cerrone

M. T.

(2011). The influences of career support and sexual identity on sexual minority women’s career aspirations. The Career Development Quarterly, 59, 441–454. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2011.tb00970.x

15.

Ganginis Del Pino

H. V.

O’Brien

K. M.

Mereish

Miller

M. J.

(2013). “Leaving before she leaves:” Considering future family when making career plans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 462–470. doi:10.1037/a0032651

16.

Gray

M. P.

O’Brien

K. M.

(2007). Advancing the assessment of women’s career choices: The career aspiration scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 15, 317–337. doi:10.1177/1069072707301211

17.

Greenhaus

J. H.

(1973). A factorial investigation of career salience. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3, 95–98. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(73)90050-X

18.

Gregor

M. A.

O'Brien

K. M.

(2015). The changing face of psychology: Career and leadership aspirations of female doctoral students in counseling and clinical psychology. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA.

19.

Harackiewicz

J. M.

Barron

K. E.

Carter

S. M.

Lehto

A. T.

Elliot

A. J.

(1997). Predictors and consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1284–1295. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1284

20.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

21.

Kerr

B. A.

Foley-Nicpon

Zapata

A. L.

(2005). The development of talent in girls and young women. In Kurpius

Kerr

B. A.

Harkins

(Eds.), Handbook for counseling girls and women (Vol. 2, pp. 15–39). Mesa, AZ: Nueva Science Press.

22.

Landivar

L. C.

(2013). Disparities in STEM Employment by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-24.pdf

23.

Laschinger

Wong

C. A.

Macdonald-Rencz

Burkoski

Cummings

D’Amour

Grau

(2013). Part 1: The influence of personal and situational predictors on nurses’ aspirations to management roles: Preliminary findings of a national survey of Canadian nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 21, 217–230. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01452.x

24.

Lennon

(2013). Benchmarking women’s leadership in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.womenscollege.du.edu/media/documents/BenchmarkingWomensLeadershipintheUS.pdf

25.

MacCallum

R. C.

Browne

M. W.

Sugawara

H. M.

(1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130

26.

Marks

Houston

D. M.

(2002). The determinants of young women's intentions about education, career development and family life. Journal of Education and Work, 15(3), 321–336. doi:10.1080/1363908022000012085

27.

McClelland

D. C.

(1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. doi:10.1037/14359-000

28.

McClelland

D. C.

Atkinson

J. W.

Clark

R. A.

Lowell

E. L.

(1953). The achievement motive. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts. doi:10.1037/11144-000

29.

McClelland

D. C.

Boyatzis

R. E.

(1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 737–743. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.6.737

30.

McClintock-Comeaux

M. S.

(2007). Female doctoral students’ family and academic department experiences and their relationships to career choices. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67. Retrieved from EBSCOhost

31.

O’Brien

K. M.

(1996). The influence of psychological separation and parental attachment on the career development of adolescent women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 257–274. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.0024

32.

O’Brien

K. M.

Fassinger

R. E.

(1993). A causal model of the career orientation and career choice of adolescent women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 456–469. doi:10.1037//0022-0167.40.4.456

33.

O’Brien

K. M

Friedman

S. M.

Tipton

L. C.

Linn

S. G.

(2000). Attachment, separation, and women’s vocational development: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 301–315. doi:10.1037//0022-0167.47.3.301

34.

Partchev

(2004). A visual guide to item response theory. Retrieved from http://www.metheval.uni-jena.de/irt/VisualIRT.pdf

35.

Rainey

Borders

(1997). Influential factors in career orientation and career aspiration of early adolescent girls. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 160–172. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.44.2.160

36.

Sayer

L. C.

Fine

(2010). Racial-ethnic differences in U.S. married women’s and men’s housework. Social Indicators Research, 101, 259–265. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9645-0

37.

Schmitt

Stults

D. M.

(1985). Factors defined by negatively keyed items: The result of careless respondents? Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 367–373. doi:10.1177/014662168500900405

38.

Spence

J. T.

Helmreich

R. L.

(1983). Achievement-related motives and behaviors. In Spence

J. T.

(Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 7–74). San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.

39.

Strauss

Griffin

M. A.

Parker

S. K.

(2012). Future work selves: How salient hoped-for identities motivate proactive career behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 580–598. doi:10.1037/a0026423

40.

Thompson

M. N.

Dahling

J. J.

(2010). Image theory and career aspirations: Indirect and interactive effects of status-related variables. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 21–29. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.02.001

41.

United States Census. (2010). Employed civilians by occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 2010. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/labor_force_employment_earnings.html

42.

Woo

Lee

(2010). Cluster types of attitudes toward multiple role planning of single, Korean, female undergraduates. Journal of Employment Counseling, 47, 50–63. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1920.2010.tb00090.x