Design My Future

Abstract

This article reports the development and psychometric requisites of Design My Future, an instrument assessing future orientation and resilience. Three different studies involving Italian preadolescents were conducted. With the first, the items were developed and the factor structure verified; the second confirmed instrument’s multidimensional structure and evaluated its discriminant validity. The third study was conducted to verify the invariance of factorial structure across gender. Results provide strong psychometric support for Design My Future as a valid measure for analyzing middle school students’ thoughts about their future orientation and resilience and for career education and career counseling activities.

Keywords

future orientation resilience life design scale development

Preadolescents, differently from the past, are currently thinking of their future in a continuously changing context, where linearity of professional trajectories is not any more useful for future planning (Savickas et al., 2009). Additionally, according to international committees, such as the National Intelligence Council (2012), challenges they will be required to face are numerous and demanding due to consequences associated with economic crisis, the rise in urbanism, the aging of population, and the increase in migration flows. Furthermore, technology will be more and more characterized by merging of informatics, biology, materials sciences, and nanotechnologies whose potentials may radically change several aspects of our lives. These disciplines will provide a more accurate monitoring of both environment and individual’s health while increasing at the same time personal safety and taxing issues related to privacy matters. Companies will be, then, required to deal at the same time with a more complex computer competence, with multiethnic populations and with the progressive aging of the workforce (Parhizgar, 2013).

Preadolescents, who for the first time will approach the world of work and are, however, involved in planning their future, will be also required to be prepared to take into account these changes and face them accordingly and to anticipate nonlinear developmental trajectories (Savickas et al., 2009). Additionally, they should be prepared to face unexpected challenges and barriers, activate, and maintain energies and resources (Nota, Soresi, Ferrari, & Ginevra, 2014). According to the Life Design approach (Savickas et al., 2009), there is the need for new competencies, substantially different from the capacities and knowledge required in the past.

Two aspects of this approach, namely, future orientation and resilience are associated with future construct and nonlinear-based actions and planning. Some studies, in fact, evidenced the role which future orientation and resilience may play in promoting more adaptive developmental trends for preadolescents (Masten & Tellegen, 2012; Prenda & Lachman, 2001; Rutter, 2012). The propensity to think about what may happen seems to be then related to the ability of considering themselves as ready to face challenges and treats, without letting themselves be overcome by difficulties and, thus, working to construct their own future (Reivich, Gillham, Chaplin, & Seligman, 2013).

Moreover, future orientation and resilience are related to career adaptability, the set of attitudes and abilities that comprise concern about future, curiosity and exploration, self-efficacy toward personal possibilities, hope, and optimism (Nota, Ginevra, & Santilli, 2015; Savickas, 2013).

Due to the remarkable relevance of these two construct for preadolescents’ career construction, they will be then described more in depth.

Future Orientation

Although future is substantially nonpredictable, human beings have developed the ability to think about and put forward multiple possible future scenarios (Atance & O’Neill, 2001). Future orientation refers to thoughts, ideas, and feelings individuals have on their future (Stoddard, Zimmerman, & Bauermeister, 2011).

Future orientation skills develop throughout adolescence starting from 11 to 12 years old, together with an increase in independence, self-regulation, and personal identity. It is in this period of life that future goals become more detailed, and preadolescents start focusing on educational and professional goals, relating them to the real world (Arnett, 2000). Future orientation and thinking of possible futures are related to behavioral flexibility and more effective planning for achieving goals (Schacter, Addis, & Buckner, 2008). It seems, then, crucial in future decision making and an integral part of our self-construction (Conway, 2005).

Currently, environmental risk factors, such as the economic crisis experienced by Western industrialized countries, may inhibit the development of future orientation in preadolescents (Stoddard et al., 2011). According to Stoddard and colleagues (2010), for instance, lack of future orientation may lead to a lack of hope toward themselves and their future. Due to a limited future orientation, preadolescents may also perceive their actual behaviors as disconnected from their future goals, thus facilitating and fostering a propensity toward risk behaviors. Robbins and Bryan (2004) found that youths characterized by limited future orientation were more likely to use marijuana, had more alcohol-related problems, including higher frequency and quantity, and a limited perception of risks associated with alcohol and drug use behaviors (Steinberg, 2007). Additionally, Adelabu (2008) found that youths with lower levels of future orientation had lower academic achievement and school functioning than youths with higher future orientation. As far as gender is concerned, results in the literature suggest that boys and girls are characterized by similar values when taking into account their future orientation (Anthis, Dunkel, & Anderson, 2004).

Finally, preadolescents who are future oriented and link their future to past and present experience are more protected against impulsive and unhealthy behaviors because this attitude increases the ability to foresee negative consequences of their actions and behaviors (Luyckx, Lens, Smits, & Goossens, 2010) and hence to refrain from those actions. As such, these individuals both in academic achievements and in their careers tend to be more successful than present-oriented individuals (Simons, Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Lacante, 2004).

To measure future orientation, the Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC) Scale (Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards, 1994) and the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999) are generally referenced in the literature. Both instruments have been developed for adolescents or adults. The CFC is a 12-item scale that assesses the tendency to consider potential future outcomes of current behaviors. The 56-item ZTPI measures an individual’s preferred time perspective (past positive or negative, present fatalistic or hedonistic, and future). In addition, as far as we know, this ZTPI is the only instrument adapted to the Italian context (Laghi, Baiocco, D’Alessio, & Gurrieri, 2009) and available to assess time perspective in adolescents and adults.

Resilience

Resilience, as originally suggested by Holling (1973), refers to the return rate to equilibrium upon a perturbation to the capacity of ecosystems characterized by alternative attractors to persist in the original state subject to perturbations (Scheffer, 2009). More recently, Masten and Obradović (2006) defined resilience as the ability to resist or quickly recover strengths and energy and to “set themselves in motion” while challenges are threatening stability, vitality, and development.

Resilience has been then more frequently conceptualized as one of the competencies individuals will most require in our society in order to prepare themselves in facing emergencies or “turbulences” (Folke et al., 2010). Norris, Stevens, Pfefferbaum, Wyche, and Pfefferbaum (2008) consider resilience as a protective and helpful factor when facing risks. According to them, risk is a permanent condition; it requires, then, being aware that, although devoting considerable efforts, it will not always be possible to activate coping strategies in time and for any potential threat.

Nowadays, several threats and high levels of risks are related to social and work uncertainties, which motivate an attention to work resilience. Resilience is then considered not only in terms of propensity to face extraordinary and traumatic events, as it was the case in the past, but also as a useful means in order to face future uncertainties and challenges (Sapienza & Masten, 2011). Throughout development, hence also during middle school, preadolescents are expected to become more and more capable of taking into account risks and changes as specific aspects of the “at risk society” in which they live, as shown for instance by the capability of easily recovering when “things go wrong” (e.g. diseases, unforeseen situations, or failures) and considering themselves able to tackle everything that may happen, even under pressure to be able to concentrate (Theron & Donald, 2013). Additionally, according to Tusaie, Puskar, and Sereika (2007), 14- to 18-year-old adolescents’ thoughts show also a relationship between the resilience they perceive when facing adverse situations and their levels of optimism. More specifically, it seems that resilience in adolescents is partially related to positive responses to the ability of asking for support (Donald & Clacherty, 2005).

Several studies in the literature also evidence gender differences showing a higher level of resilience in boys (Connor & Davison, 2003; Yu et al., 2011). This difference might be easily associated with stereotypical context-related values according to which boys are forced to assume “never living up” behaviors or being otherwise considered of a low masculinity. Furthermore, resilient young people exhibit higher levels of adaptive competences: academic achievement, peer relations, and conduct such as compliance or following rules versus aggressive or disruptive behavior (Masten & Tellegen, 2012). Masten and colleagues, using age-appropriate instruments, measured the adaptive function of resilience and found that both adolescents and adults showing higher levels of resilience are characterized by higher levels of adaptive behavior in work, romantic relationships, parenting, and higher civic engagement (Masten & Osofsky, 2010; Masten et al., 1999).

Several quantitative instruments are referenced in the literature to assess resilience from childhood to adolescence (for more information see Windle, Bennett, & Noyes, 2011), and only two measures are available to the Italian context: The Italian version of the Resilience scale for Adolescents (READ; Hjemdal, Aune, Reinfjell, Stiles, & Friborg, 2007) developed by Stratta and colleagues (2013) for students aged from 18 to 20 years and the Dispositional Resilience Scale-15 (Bartone, 2007) for adults, adapted by Picardi et al. (2012). Most of the measures developed assess the ability to recover and cope with current difficulties and reflect a sense of personal agency in adolescents and adults so that Windle, Bennett, and Noyes (2011) highlight the absence of a conceptually sound and psychometrically robust measure of resilience for children and preadolescents (under 12 years old). Moreover, no one focuses on possible future difficulties and uncertainties.

Research Aims

There are several reasons for which we decided to develop a new measure.

First of all, no measure exists to assess both future orientation and resilience in one instrument with the preadolescent population. Taking into account suggestions on the relationship between future orientation and resilience (Folke et al., 2010), the evidence that adolescents are currently required to develop their future goals before the problem of choice is urgent and the emphasis of Life Design approach on prevention, we consider it particularly important to evaluate these two constructs in a single instrument, saving time.

Second, the few available measures to assess time perspective and resilience in the Italian context are adaptations of international assessment instruments. Developing a measure that assesses both constructs may be particularly important for Italian preadolescents, as they are required at 13 years old to make a decision about high school education. Generally, they have three options: lycee that prepares for college, technical schools, and vocational schools. A measure such as that proposed may help to identify those students who need support in their decision-making process and to implement preventive actions.

With the aim of developing an Italian measure that is closer to our context, three studies with three independent groups of preadolescents were conducted to assess the validation and the reliability of the instrument Design My Future. The first study was carried out in two phases, first, to develop statements to tap the construct and secondly, to verifying the instrument’s psychometric requisites, such as reliability and construct validity. The second study examined the factorial structure’s stability and the instrument’s discriminant validity. The third was intended to verify the factorial structure’s gender invariance.

Study 1: Scale Construction and Exploratory Factor Analysis

The first study’s goals were (a) to generate a range of items to represent the dimensions of future orientation and resilience in the first phase and (b) to examine factorial structure and reliability of the questionnaire Design My Future in the second phase.

Phase 1

To develop items that assess future orientation and resilience, we reviewed the literature by searching for relevant key words such as “future” “resilience” in PsycINFO and Web of Science databases. Thirty items were identified on the basis of the definition of the constructs focusing on future orientation and resilience. In the first steps, we created 15 items for the future orientation scale and 15 items for the resilience scale. Content validity of the items was assured by creating items that closely resembled existing items from established scales. Two independent expert raters, with experience in questionnaire construction and the constructs examined, evaluated the items in terms of clarity of wording, construct representativeness, and the extent to which item differences were clear. A 5-point scale was selected as the response format, with 1 indicating a low level (It describes me not at all) and 5 indicating a high level of future orientation and resilience (It describes me very well). A pilot study conducted on 20 (10 boys and 10 girls) middle school students (M _age = 12.70, SD = .47) ensured items were appropriate and comprehension adequate for 13 items of the time perspective scale and 8 items for the resilience.

Phase 2

We anticipated a factorial structure representing the two dimensions, future orientation and resilience, and to achieve internal consistency indices of atleast .70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

Method

Participants

Participants were 802 Italian middle school students, 449 boys and 353 girls, aged 11–14 years (M _age = 12.83, SD = .49).

Instruments

The preliminary version of the 21-item Design My Future, developed as described earlier, was used to analyze future orientation and resilience.

Procedures

Design My Future was included in a survey administered to middle school students who voluntarily participated, with their parents signing the consent form for career counseling and vocational guidance activities which were implemented at middle school. They were also told their answers would be used to draw up personalized reports they would receive confidentially.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

An examination of the asymmetry and kurtosis values revealed all 21 items were satisfactory (all values were ≤1).

Construct Validity

A principal axis factoring (PAF) analysis was conducted on the 21-item scale to estimate the number of factors. The factorability was supported by Bartlett’s test of sphericity, χ²(210, N = 802) = 5374.99, p < .0001, and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy of .93 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Parallel analysis (Horn, 1965) and scree analysis of the eigenvalues were used to determine the number of factors to extract from the data. Specifically, parallel analysis was conducted using 100 randomly generated samples composed of an identical number of participants and items as in the current study. Both the scree plot (Cattell, 1966) and parallel analysis tests (Horn, 1965) suggested an initial two-factor solution that was subsequently carefully examined with an EFA with an oblique rotation (direct oblimin) because factors were expected to be correlated. The final run of PAF on the two-factor oblique solution with 21 items accounted for 38.50% of total variance (see Table 1). The first factor was composed of 13 items, accounted for 22.79% of the variance, and referred to as future orientation. The second factor was composed of 8 items, accounted for 15.72% of the variance, and concerned resilience.

Table 1.

Items, Component Loading, and Communality Estimates.

Items	1	2	Communality
2. I like to daydream about what my future holds for me.	.68	−.11	.41
10. The idea of being able in the future to realize my dreams, passionate me right now.	.67	.03	.47
9. Building a positive future for me is something that I think often.	.67	.00	.44
21. I often think about how I wish things were going in the future.	.63	−.05	.38
14. I like to think about what I can do to have a good future.	.61	.11	.44
1. I often think when I will grow up.	.60	−.12	.34
12. About my future I have many ideas and hopes.	.57	.11	.39
6. I like to think about where I will be in a few years.	.57	−.06	.30
19. When I think about my future I pay attention to the type of person I’d like to be.	.57	.04	.34
18. Imagine my future makes me feel optimistic.	.52	.19	.39
7. I think that my future will depend on how much I will do actively.	.50	−.03	.24
3. Look ahead and think about what will happen in the future makes me feel full of energy.	.49	.17	.33
11. I always commit to achieve what is important to me.	.43	.24	.34
13. I think I’m a strong person.	−.10	.77	.54
17. I think I’m a person who does not get discouraged easily.	−.07	.76	.53
4. I consider myself a strong person.	−.07	.68	.42
16. I consider myself able to deal with anything that might have happened.	.06	.63	.43
20. I think I’m able to challenge the difficult situations that may arise in the future for me.	.12	.61	.44
5. Even if I am under pressure, I can concentrate and think lucidly.	.01	.50	.26
15. I believe to achieve my goals.	.24	.46	.39
8. In anything I am committed to the maximum.	.24	.35	.24

Descriptive Information

Means and SDs of each factor were as follows: future orientation: M = 46.84, SD = 9.23; resilience: M = 26.12, SD = 5.41.

Floor and ceiling effects were analyzed with SPSS version 22 and considered to be present if more than 15% of the respondents achieved the highest or lowest possible score in each factor. None of the middle school students had a worst possible score for the factor future orientation and 7 (0.87%) had a maximum possible score; for the factor resilience, 1 (0.12%) middle school student had a worst possible score and 1 (0.12%) had a maximum possible score.

Intercorrelations Among Factors

The intercorrelation among the two factors was .56.

Internal Consistency

Cronbach’s α internal consistency reliability for the two factors were as follows: future orientation .88 and resilience .83.

Discussion Study 1

The preliminary analysis showed satisfactory discriminant validity for all items. Moreover, construct validity expectations were confirmed and the exploratory factor analysis identified two factors with factor loadings of >.35. The factors were strongly interrelated (.56) and showed good levels of internal consistency (.88 and .83). In addition, means and SDs suggested the absence of ceiling or floor effects, and SDs reflected variation in the adolescents’ responses around the midpoint (Terwee et al., 2007). Thus, the initial results from Study 1 suggested that Design My Future is a psychometrically adequate instrument with two distinct constructs and seem appropriate for use with a broad range of Italian preadolescents.

Study 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Discriminant validity

The goals of Study 2 were (a) to test the multidimensional structure of Design My Future using confirmatory factor analysis with the maximum likelihood estimation method (K. Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2004) and (b) to evaluate its discriminant validity.

With respect to our first aim, we compared two models for Design My Future internal structure: the hypothesized model and one alternative model. The hypothesized model (H: 21-2) predicted that items clustered into two factors. The alternative model hypothesized that all 21 items corresponded to a single factor. We predicted that the 21-2 model would fit the data better than the alternative model.

Our second goal was to examine the discriminant validity of the instrument, as related to career adaptability and life satisfaction. More specifically, we predicted positive low or moderate correlations between future orientation and resilience with career adaptability and life satisfaction.

Method

Participants

The sample comprised 342 Italian middle school students, aged 11 to 14 years (M _age = 12.53, SD = .76), made up of 178 (52%) boys and 164 (48%) girls. Students were involved using the same procedure adopted in Study 1.

Measures

The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SLS)

It is a 5-item scale used to assess global life satisfaction. Total score ranges from 5 to 25, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction with life (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). An example of an item is “I am satisfied with my life.” In a study carried out to adapt and validate the Italian version of the scale, I. Di Maggio (2014) observed a monofactorial structure, accounting for 55.73% of the total variance and Cronbach’s α of .80. In this study, Cronbach’s α was .75.

Career Adapt–Abilities Scale (CAAS-Italy for pre-adolescents)

It consists of 24 items, the same as in the Career Adapt–Abilities Scale-International Form 2.0 and Italian-Form (G. Di Maggio, Ginevra, Nota, Ferrari, & Soresi, 2013; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012; Soresi, Nota, & Ferrari, 2012). Participants responded to each item on a scale ranging from 1 (not strong) to 5 (strongest). The 24 items combine into a total score indicating career adaptability and are also divided into four subscales that measure specific adapt–ability resources: concern (e.g., “Realizing that today’s choices shape my future”), control (e.g., “Counting on myself”), curiosity (e.g., “Investigating options before making a choice”), and confidence (e.g., “Working up to my ability”). The CAAS-Italy for preadolescents showed good reliability ranging from .69 to .81 for the four subscales and .91 for the total score. For this sample, Cronbach’s α were .80, .70, .73, and .80 for the four subscales, and .93 for the total score.

Procedure

The same procedure used in the first study was followed for Study 2.

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Following Hu and Bentler’ s (1999) and Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, and Müller’s (2003) suggestions, we examined multiple indices to assess the model’s fit to the data: the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the nonnormed fit index (NNFI), and the standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR). The hypothesized two-factor correlated model (H: 21-2) showed good fit: χ²(188, n = 342) = 600.90; p < .001; CFI = .95; NNFI = .94; RMSEA = .06 (90% confidence interval [CI₉₀] = [.06, .07]); SRMR = .06.

The alternative model (A2: 21-1) showed a fit of χ²(189, n = 342) = 1159.20, p < .001, CFI = .90, NNFI = .89, RMSEA = .10 (CI₉₀ = [.10, .11]), SRMR = .075.

The hypothesized 21-2 model fits the data best because it had the lowest χ², the highest CFI (.95), and the lowest RMSEA (.06). Regarding the hypothesized two-factor model, all of the factor loadings were significant (ranging from .37 to .75, p < .001), suggesting that the two factors were well represented by the items. The R ² index indicates the squared multiple correlations and shows the amount of variance accounted for by each item (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Standardized Solution by Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the Two-Factor Model: Matrix Δx and Indices R ².

	Matrix Δx	R ²
Item 2	.43	.18
Item 10	.50	.25
Item 9	.56	.31
Item 21	.51	.26
Item 14	.57	.32
Item 1	.50	.25
Item 12	.59	.34
Item 6	.49	.24
Item 19	.57	.33
Item 18	.59	.34
Item 7	.37	.14
Item 3	.51	.26
Item 11	.47	.22
Item 13	.75	.56
Item 17	.74	.55
Item 4	.60	.37
Item 16	.63	.39
Item 20	.61	.38
Item 5	.46	.21
Item 15	.56	.31
Item 8	.38	.15

Associations Between Design My Future, Career Adapt–Abilities Scale, and Satisfaction With Life Scale

Table 3 shows correlations among the instruments. As expected, future orientation and resilience were positively associated with life satisfaction and career adaptabilities. The discriminant correlations, however, varied enormously (range = .27–.45).

Table 3.

Correlations Among Design My Future, Career Adapt-abilities Scale, and Satisfaction With Life Scale.

Design My Future	Career Adapt-Abilities Scale				Satisfaction With Life Scale
Design My Future	Concern	Control	Curiosity	Confidence	Life satisfaction
Future Orientation	.272**	.417**	.300**	.336**	.281**
Resilience	.356**	.265**	.239**	.448**	.428**

**p < .001.

Discussion Study 2

Study 2 was conducted to examine the stability of the 21-item factorial structure of Design My Future. The confirmatory factor analysis showed that the two-factor structure yielded in Study 1 was stable with another sample of Italian preadolescents. All of the factor loadings were significant and presented loadings of >.37, suggesting that the two factors were well represented by the items.

As regards discriminant validity, the correlation patterns were in line with our predictions as future orientation and resilience correlated with the Career Adapt–Abilities Scale and the Satisfaction With Life Scale. The correlation matrix also shows that, as expected, higher levels of future orientation and resilience were associated with higher levels of life satisfaction and career adaptability. These results, in line with Prenda and Lachman’s (2001) and Masten and Tellegen’s (2012) works, suggest that future orientation and resilience are related to career adaptability levels in dealing with transition and challenges and with the level of perceived life satisfaction.

Study 3: Examining Measurement Invariance Across Gender

A third study was conducted to analyze across-gender measurement invariance of Design My Future. Specifically, a multiple-group confirmatory factor analytic approach (K. Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2004) with a third sample of middle school students was carried out. We followed a hierarchical set of steps from a less restrictive model to a more restrictive one, to test measurement invariance, by starting from determination of a baseline model, then by adding equivalence constraints in the models across groups. It therefore resulted in nested models ranging invariance measurement level (Meredith, 1993): (a) configural factorial invariance, (b) weak or metric factorial invariance, and (c) strong or scalar factorial invariance. After ascertaining factorial invariance, we examined the homogeneity of variance and covariance, in order to verify if the entire covariance structure is invariant across groups and has the same parametric structure, then we examined the equivalence of the latent construct means to verify if means of factors are significantly different across groups (Little, 1997). With respect to latent means differences, in line with studies in the literature, we expected gender invariance for future orientation (Anthis et al., 2004) and gender variance on resilience, with boys perceiving higher levels of resilience than girls (Connor & Davidson, 2003; Newman, 2002).

Method

Participants

The total sample was composed of 560 Italian middle school students aged 11 to 14 years (M _age = 12.97, SD = .51), made up of 280 boys and 280 girls.

Measures

Study 3 used the same instrument described in Study 1.

Procedure

Students were involved using the same procedure adopted in Study 1.

Results

Measurement Invariance

The initial model, freely estimated for both groups, revealed an acceptable fit χ²(376, n = 560) = 638.41; p <.001; CFI = .935; NNFI = .928; and RMSEA = .077 (CI₉₀ = [.07, .08]). We then tested measurement invariance, equating the loadings and the intercepts. As shown in Table 4, no significant fit changes based on the RMSEA Model Test emerged. (The RMSEA value of the nested model fell within the 90% RMSEA confidence interval of the comparison model). Using the CFIΔ test, CFI changes were less than 0.01 when cross-group constraints were imposed (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). These tests showed invariance of factors when measured across the two groups. Variance and covariance homogeneity across the two groups was not established. Finally, latent means invariance across boys and girls was not found. Further evaluation yielded significant differences in the latent factor means, as shown in Table 4. More specifically, boys showed higher levels of resilience than girls.

Table 4.

Fit Indices for the Nested Sequence in the Multiple Factor Analysis and Latent Mean Level Differences.

Model	χ²	df	p	Δχ²	Δdf	p	RMSEA	RMSEA 90% CI	CFI	ΔCFI	NNFI
Configural invariance¹	1015.60	376	<.001	—	—	—	.077	[.072, .083]	.935	—	.928
Weak invariance¹	1085.06	395	<.001	—	—	—	.079	[.073, .084]	.930	.005	.926
Strong invariance¹	1138.34	414	<.001	—	—	—	.079	[.073, .084]	.927	.003	.926
Homogeneity of variance/covariance²	1157.19	417	<.001	18.86	3	<.001	.080	[.075, .085]	.925	.002	.925
Latent mean invariance²	1174.05	416	<.001	35.71	2	<.001	.081	[.076, .086]	.923	.004	.923
Latent mean invariance: future orientation²	1138.43	415	.076	.09	1	.76	.079	[.074, .084]	.930	.003	.930
Latent mean invariance: resilience²	1163.03	415	<.001	24.69	1	<.001	.081	[.076, .086]	.920	.007	.920

Note. ¹Evaluated with the RMSEA model test. ²Evaluated with χ² difference test. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; NNFI = nonnormed fit index.

Discussion Study 3

The aim of this study was to analyze Design My Future across-gender measurement invariance. Specifically, we employed a multiple-group confirmatory factor analytic approach (K. G. Jöreskog, 1971) with a third sample of 560 Italian middle school students to assess whether future orientation and resilience were perceived in the same manner across gender. Results confirmed configural, metric, and strong invariance across genders, indicating that the Design My Future is measuring the same latent trait domains in boys and girls such that its structure appears to be the same across gender. Moreover, this suggests that the constructs’ variance, correlational, and mean-level differences could be meaningfully compared between boys and girls, with quantitative precision, because constructs were defined in the same operational manner for each group (Little, 1997). Although mean differences were observed, with boys reporting higher levels of resilience than girls, these reflect true differences and not a systematic artifact or bias of the measure itself. These results are in line with Newman’s (2002) and Connor and Davison’s (2003) researches where higher resilience and higher propensity to make more use of adaptive coping strategies were found in boys than in girls.

Overall, this factorial invariance adds important support for the validity of Design My Future as a self-report measure as it indicates that the scores assess the same latent constructs in boys and girls.

General Discussion

The combined results of the three studies provide very strong psychometric support for the questionnaire Design My Future. In the first study, content validity of the items was supported by reference to the literature, pilot testing, and use of expert raters. Construct validity of the scale was supported by EFA that showed a factor structure characterized by two-correlated subtest regarding future orientation and resilience. Moreover, it highlighted good reliability and moderate correlation between the two factors.

The confirmatory factor analysis runs in the second study with a new group of middle school students confirms the stability of the two-factor structure. Moreover, correlational analyses conducted with Career Adapt–Abilities Scale and Satisfaction With Life Scale showed future orientation and resilience as related but distinct from career adaptability and life satisfaction, suggesting that preadolescents with higher levels of future orientation and resilience are characterized by propensity to deal with transition and challenges and deal with satisfaction for their life (Masten & Tellegen, 2012; Prenda & Lachma, 2001).

Finally, in the third study, measurement invariance assumptions were tested. Specifically, results suggest that, although two constructs are perceived similarly by boys and girls, the mean on resilience across these groups differs and cannot be attributed to differences in unit of measurement and on intercepts of the regression equations of the observed variables on the latent factors across group. Moreover, in line with Newman’s (2002) and Connor and Davison’s findings (2003), boys presented higher ability than girls to deal with difficulties and uncertainties that they may experience in their futures.

Overall, the present study’s results provide new information about future orientation and resilience in Italian preadolescents. Specifically, the results obtained emphasize the importance of examining and studying future orientation and resilience in this developmental period, as they are associated with career adaptability and life satisfaction and play a relevant role in life designing. In this respect, the propensity to take time and think about the future and the ability to consider themselves as ready to face challenges and threats are useful to promote already in preadolescence more adaptive career development in current times (Masten & Tellegen, 2012).

Practical Implications

The questionnaire’s psychometric indices that were observed supports the use of Design My Future in counseling and career counseling activities designed to support preadolescents in the process of coconstructing and designing their paths and to promote personal and professional skills useful in the current world of work (Savickas et al., 2009). This instrument could be helpful in investigating thoughts, ideas, and feelings middle school students have about their future, their propensity to orient themselves positively toward the future and to think about several possible futures. It also could be useful in analyzing middle school students’ levels of resilience, or their ability to think about their readiness in facing challenges and threats and not being overwhelmed by them, for the benefit of their own future. It could also be used in pre- and post-test sessions to verify the effectiveness of career education programs aimed at strengthening the orientation to the future and resilience in middle school students. Finally, it could be used in research aimed at examining future orientation and resilience indicators, and psycho-social and professional issues in preadolescents.

Limitations and Directions for Future Studies

This study was limited in a number of ways. Firstly, we have no information about ethnicity of participants involved. Generally, 7% of the Italian middle school population has different ethnic backgrounds (e.g., students from Eastern European, North Africa, South America; MIUR, 2014), and further studies should also consider this variable. Secondly, convergent and incremental validity of the instrument was not tested, and additional research is needed to investigate the relations among this measure with others that assess future orientation and resilience. Thirdly, the fact that the questionnaire is based on self-reported information should not be underestimated, and multitrait multimethod matrix design should be used to examine how self-report and informant-report scores correlate. Finally, test–retest measures should be also introduced in further research studies.

Footnotes

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

Adelabu

D. H.

(2008). Future time perspective, hope, and ethnic identity among African American adolescents. Urban Education, 43, 347–360. doi:10.1177/0042085907311806

Anthis

K. S.

Dunkel

C. S.

Anderson

(2004). Gender and identity status differences in late adolescents’ possible selves. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 147–152. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.11.010

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Atance

C. M.

O’Neill

D. K.

(2001). Episodic future thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 533–539. doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2005.02.003

Bartone

P. T.

(2007). Test-retest reliability of the dispositional resilience scale-15, a brief hardiness scale 1. Psychological Reports, 101, 943–944.

Cattell

R. B.

(1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_1d

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

Connor

K. M.

Davidson

J. R.

(2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76–82.

Conway

M. A.

(2005). Memory and the self. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 594–628.

10.

Diener

E. D.

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

11.

Di Maggio

(2014, 4). Nuove dimensioni e nuovi strumenti per l’orientamento precoce [New constructs and new instruments for the vocational prevention]. Paper presented at the seminar “Insegnare a pensare al futuro e al lavoro nella scuola dell’obbligo,” Padova, Italy.

12.

Di Maggio

Ginevra

M. C.

Nota

Ferrari

Soresi

(2013, 12). Career adapt-abilities scale-Italian form: Psychometric proprieties with Italian preadolescents. Paper presented at the Italian conference “Counselling e Career Counselling: valutazioni e certificazioni,” Padova, Italy.

13.

Donald

Clacherty

(2005). Developmental vulnerabilities and strengths of children living in child-headed households: A comparison with children in adult-headed households in equivalent impoverished communities. African Journal of AIDS Research, 4, 21–28. doi:10.2989/16085900509490338

14.

Folke

Carpenter

S. R.

Walker

Scheffer

Chapin

Rockström

(2010). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15, 20.

15.

Hjemdal

Aune

Reinfjell

Stiles

T. C.

Friborg

(2007). Resilience as a predictor of depressive symptoms: A correlational study with young adolescents. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 12, 91–104.

16.

Holling

C. S.

(1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23.

17.

Horn

J. L.

(1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185. doi:10.1007/BF02289447

18.

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

19.

Jöreskog

K. G.

(1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36, 409–426.

20.

Jöreskog

Sörbom

(2004). LISREL 8.70. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.

21.

Laghi

Baiocco

D’Alessio

Gurrieri

(2009). Suicidal ideation and time perspective in high school students. European Psychiatry, 24, 41–46.

22.

Little

T. D.

(1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53–76. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3201_3

23.

Luyckx

Lens

Smits

Goossens

(2010). Time perspective and identity formation: Short-term longitudinal dynamics in college students. International Journal of Behavioral Development. doi:10.1177/0165025409350957

24.

Masten

A. S.

Hubbard

J. J.

Gest

S. D.

Tellegen

Garmezy

Ramirez

(1999). Competence in the context of adversity: Pathways to resilience and maladaptation from childhood to late adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 143–169.

25.

Masten

A. S.

Obradović

(2006). Competence and resilience in development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 13–27. doi:10.1196/annals.1376.003

26.

Masten

A. S.

Osofsky

J. D.

(2010). Disasters and their impact on child development: Introduction to the special section. Child Development, 81, 1029–1039. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01452.x

27.

Masten

A. S.

Tellegen

(2012). Resilience in developmental psychopathology: Contributions of the project competence longitudinal study. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 345–361. doi:10.1017/S095457941200003X

28.

Meredith

(1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543. doi:10.1007/BF02294825

29.

National Intelligence Council. (2012). Global trends 2030: AlternAtiveWorlds. Retrieved from http://www.dni.gov/i

30.

Newman

(2002). Promoting resilience: A review of effective strategies for child care services. Exeter, England: Centre for Evidence-Based Social Services.

31.

Norris

F. H.

Stevens

S. P.

Pfefferbaum

Wyche

K. F.

Pfefferbaum

R. L.

(2008). Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 127–150. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6

32.

Nota

Ginevra

M. C.

Santilli

(2015). Life design and prevention. In Nota

Rossier

(Eds.), Life design handbook (pp. 183–199). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.

33.

Nota

Soresi

Ferrari

Ginevra

M. C.

(2014). Vocational designing and career counseling in Europe: Challenges and new horizons. European Psychologist, 1–12. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000189

34.

Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

I. H.

(1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

35.

Parhizgar

K. D.

(2013). Multicultural behavior ad global business environments. New York, NY: Routledge.

36.

Picardi

Bartone

P. T.

Querci

Bitetti

Tarsitani

Roselli

… Biondi

(2012). Development and validation of the Italian version of the 15-item dispositional resilience scale. Rivista di Psichiatria, 47, 231–237.

37.

Prenda

K. M.

Lachman

M. E.

(2001). Planning for the future: A life management strategy for increasing control and life satisfaction in adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 16, 206.

38.

Reivich

Gillham

J. E.

Chaplin

T. M.

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2013). From helplessness to optimism: The role of resilience in treating and preventing depression in youth. In Goldstein

Brooks

R. B.

(Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children (pp. 201–214). New York, NY: Springer.

39.

Robbins

R. N.

Bryan

(2004). Relationships between future orientation, impulsive sensation seeking, and risk behavior among adjudicated adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 428–445. doi:10.1177/0743558403258860

40.

Rutter

(2012). Resilience as a dynamic concept. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 335–344. doi:10.1017/S0954579412000028

41.

Sapienza

J. K.

Masten

A. S.

(2011). Understanding and promoting resilience in children and youth. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 24, 267–273. doi:10.1097/YCO.0b013e32834776a8

42.

Savickas

M. L.

(2013). Career construction theory and practice. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career development and counseling. Putting theory and research to work (2nd ed., pp. 144–180). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

43.

Watkins

C. E.

Savickas

M. L.

(2014). Psychodynamic career counseling. In Walsh

W. B.

Osipow

S. H.

(Eds.), Career counseling. Contemporary topics in vocational psychology (pp. 79–116). New York: Routledge.

44.

Savickas

M. L.

Nota

Rossier

Dauwalder

J. P.

Duarte

M. E.

Guichard

… Van Vianen

A. E.

(2009). Life designing: A paradigm for career construction in the 21st century. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 239–250. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.04.004

45.

Savickas

M. L.

Porfeli

E. J.

(2012). Career adapt-abilities scale: Construction, reliability, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 661–673. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.009

46.

Schacter

D. L.

Addis

D. R.

Buckner

R. L.

(2008). Episodic simulation of future events. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124, 39–60. doi:10.1196/annals.1440.001

47.

Scheffer

(2009). Critical transitions in nature and society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

48.

Schermelleh-Engel

Moosbrugger

Müller

(2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodnesss of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23–74.

49.

Simons

Vansteenkiste

Lens

Lacante

(2004). Placing motivation and future time perspective theory in a temporal perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 121–139.

50.

Soresi

Nota

Ferrari

(2012). Career adapt-abilities scale-italian form: Psychometric properties and relationships to breadth of interests, quality of life, and perceived barriers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 705–711. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.020

51.

Steinberg

(2007). Risk taking in adolescence new perspectives from brain and behavioral science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 55–59.

52.

Stoddard

S. A.

Zimmerman

M. A.

Bauermeister

J. A.

(2011). Thinking about the future as a way to succeed in the present: A longitudinal study of future orientation and violent behaviors among African American youth. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48, 238–246. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9383-0

53.

Strathman

Gleicher

Boninger

D. S.

Edwards

C. S.

(1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 742.

54.

Stratta

Capanna

Patriarca

de Cataldo

Bonanni

R. L.

Riccardi

Rossi

(2013). Resilience in adolescence: Gender differences two years after the earthquake of L’Aquila. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 327–331

55.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2001). Using multivariate analysis. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

56.

Terwee

C. B.

Bot

S. D.

de Boer

M. R.

van der Windt

D. A.

Knol

D. L.

Dekker

… de Vet

H. C.

(2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34–42. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012

57.

Theron

L. C.

Donald

D. R.

(2013). Educational psychology and resilience in developing contexts: A rejoinder to Toland and Carrigan (2011). School Psychology International, 34, 51–66. doi:10.1177/0143034311425579

58.

Tusaie

Puskar

Sereika

S. M.

(2007). A predictive and moderating model of psychosocial resilience in adolescents. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 39, 54–60. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2007.00143.x

59.

Windle

Bennett

K. M.

Noyes

(2011). A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9, 1–18.

60.

X. N.

Lau

J. T.

Mak

W. W.

Zhang

Lui

W. W.

Zhang

(2011). Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Connor-Davidson resilience scale among Chinese adolescents. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 52, 218–224. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0153-3

61.

Zimbardo

P. G.

Boyd

J. N.

(1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1271.