Article

Journal of Career Assessment

2014, Vol. 22(2) 386-397
ª The Author(s) 2013
A Psychometric Evaluation Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
of the Career Decision DOI: 10.1177/1069072713484561
jca.sagepub.com
Self-Efficacy Scale–Short
Form With Turkish
University Students

Aysenur Buyukgoze-Kavas1

Abstract
The current study aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the Career Decision Self-
Efficacy scale–Short Form (CDSES-SF) in a sample of 695 Turkish university students. Accordingly,
internal reliability, test–retest reliability, convergent validity, and factor structure of the CDSES-SF
were examined. The results indicated high internal and test–retest reliability for total scores. The
evidence for the convergent validity was provided by a relatively high correlation between career
decision-making self-efficacy and general self-efficacy. To estimate the factor structure of the scale,
Betz, Klein, and Taylor’s five-factor model of the CDSES-SF, along with a number of empirically
derived measurement models of the CDSES-SF were tested via confirmatory factor analyses. Only
Gaudron’s four-factor model exhibited good model fit for the Turkish sample. The findings of this
study are discussed in accordance with previous studies and the current cultural context of Turkey.

Keywords
Career Decision Self-Efficacy scale, reliability, validity, confirmatory factor analysis, Turkish university
students

Making a career decision is one of the significant and inevitable tasks of life. In this regard, a
considerable body of literature has focused on factors that play important role on individuals’ career
decisions. Career decision-making self-efficacy has become one of the widely investigated construct
since its introduction with the work of Taylor and Betz (1983) on the development of Career
Decision Self-Efficacy scale (CDSES).
The CDSES is primarily founded on Bandura’s (1977, 1997) concept of self-efficacy expecta-
tions, which suggests that individuals’ beliefs about their ability to successfully perform a given task

1
Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey

Corresponding Author:
Aysenur Buyukgoze-Kavas, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Psychology, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun
55139, Turkey.
Email: aysenur@omu.edu.tr

386
Buyukgoze-Kavas 387

are the major mediators of behavior and behavior change and Hackett and Betz’s (1981) original
suggestion. In addition, the five career choice competencies postulated in Crites’ (1961, 1978)
model of career maturity were used as a framework by the authors (Taylor & Betz, 1983) of the scale
to decide on required skills in career decision making.
The CDSES (Taylor & Betz, 1983) aims to measure an individual’s degree of belief that he or she
can successfully complete tasks necessary to making career decisions. The CDSES composed of 50
items designed to measure five domains of career decision-making self-efficacy on the basis of
Crites’ (1978) model of career maturity. These five domains (subscales) were accurate self-
appraisal, gathering occupational information, goal selection, making plans for the future, and
problem solving. Respondents are asked to rate their confidence about performing each task on a
10-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (no confidence) to 9 (complete confidence).
Due to the length of the original scale, a short form of the scale was developed by eliminating 5 of
the 10 items from each of the five subscales (Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996). Thus, the Career Deci-
sion Self-Efficacy scale–Short Form (CDSES-SF) contains 25 items taken from the original CDSES.
It is again rated on a 10-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (no confidence) to 9 (complete
confidence). Betz et al. (1996) reported the internal consistency reliability of the short form ranged
from .73 (self-appraisal) to .83 (goal selection) for the subscales and .94 for the total score. The result
of the factor analysis of the short form revealed a five-factor solution; however, items did not load on
their respective factor consistent with proposed model.
Recently, Betz, Hammond, and Multon (2005) examined the internal consistency reliability and
criterion-related validity of 5-level response continuum ranging from 1 (no confidence at all) to 5
(complete confidence). Betz et al. (2005) reported coefficient a values ranging from .78 to .87 for
the five subscales and .95 for the total score. Criterion-related validity correlations with career inde-
cision and vocational identity were similar for the two response continua. Accordingly, the authors
concluded that 5-level response continuum, like 10-level response continuum provided reliable and
valid scores.
More recently, Hartman and Betz (2007) made a minor revision on the CDSES-SF. The authors
replaced the original item ‘‘Find information in the library about occupations you are interested in’’
with a new item ‘‘Use the internet to find information about occupations that interest you’’ to keep
up with technological changes. Hartman and Betz (2007) reported item-total correlations for the new
and original items as .54 and .50, respectively, and Cronbach’s a for the CDSES-SF as .96. Based on
these results, the authors added the ‘‘Internet’’ item and deleted the ‘‘library’’ item in the last version
of 25-item scale.
Currently, the CDSES is one of the most frequently used and popular instruments in the field of
career psychology and counseling (O’Brien, 2003). CDSES has received a good deal of research
attention. Thus, there is extensive evidence for the reliability and validity of both the original and
the short forms of the scale. For example, Nilsson, Schmidt, and Meek (2002) reviewed 56 studies
including published journal articles and dissertations and found that the a reliability coefficients of
the original and short forms of the scale ranged from .83 to .97 for total scores. Additionally, Luzzo
(1993) and Mau (2000) both computed a test–retest reliability coefficient of .83 based on a 6-week
and a 4-week interval, respectively. Gaudron (2011) provided a test–retest reliability coefficient
of .81.
A substantial body of empirical research has provided criterion related and construct validity of
the CDSES and the CDSES-SF. Both forms of the scale have been found to be significantly
correlated with career indecision (Betz et al., 1996; Betz & Luzzo, 1996; Taylor & Popma,
1990), vocational identity (Gushue, Scanlan-Kolone, Pantzer, & Clark, 2006; Munson & Savickas,
1998), career commitment (Betz & Sterling, 1993; Chung, 2002), career maturity (Luzzo, 1993),
patterns of career choice (Gianakos, 1999), career exploratory behaviors (Blustein, 1989; Gushue
et al., 2006), general self-efficacy and global self-esteem (Betz & Klein, 1996), academic and career

387
388 Journal of Career Assessment 22(2)

outcome expectations, and exploratory intentions (Betz & Klein Voyten, 1997). Additionally, some
researchers investigated demographic variables related to career decision self-efficacy. Among
demographics, gender is the most frequently investigated variable. Studies that evaluated gender
differences have generally reported no difference on career decision-making self-efficacy
(e.g., Betz et al., 1996; Hampton, 2006; Luzzo, 1993).
After the development of the CDSES (Taylor & Betz, 1983), various factor analytic studies were
conducted for both the original and the short forms of the scale (e.g., Betz, Hammond, & Multon,
2005; Creed, Patton, & Watson, 2002; Peterson & delMas, 1998). In these studies, several factorial
analyses were employed including the principal component analysis by varimax rotation as in the
original study of Taylor and Betz (1983), principal axis factoring with direct oblimin rotation
(e.g., Creed et al., 2002), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood estima-
tion (e.g., Miller, Sendrowitz Roy, Brown, Thomas, & McDaniel, 2009; Watson, Brand, Stead, &
Ellis, 2001). However, most of them did not confirm the proposed five-factor model of the scale
(e.g., Gaudron, 2011; Hampton, 2005; Peterson & delMas, 1998). Therefore, some authors
suggested that the CDSES-SF could be regarded as a generalized career decision-making self-
efficacy measure (i.e., measuring a general factor; Creed et al., 2002; Taylor & Popma, 1990;
Watson et al., 2001).
Creed, Patton, and Watson (2002) identified two different three-factor 23-item solutions for
Australian and South African high school students. Labels of the factors were information gathering,
decision making, and problem solving. Likewise, Hampton (2005) identified a three-factor solution
with 13 items for Chinese college students and labeled the factors same as Creed et al. (2002). In
another study, Hampton (2006) investigated four-factor (empirically derived) and five-factor
(theoretically derived) solutions for Chinese high school students. Since the distribution of the items
was complex, Hampton (2006) decided to use CDSES-SF as a general measure of career decision-
making behavior. Recently, Chaney, Hammond, Betz, and Multon (2007) proposed a four-factor
solution for African American college students. The authors suggested that the first factor that con-
tained 10 items from all five theoretical subscales was a general measure of career self-efficacy. The
second factor was related to self-appraisal and determining ideal job or career. The third factor
seemed to focus on knowing career options and the job search process. The fourth factor included
2 problem-solving items. In a more recent study, Gaudron (2011) identified a four-factor solution
with 18 items for French university students. These factors were labeled as goal selection, problem
solving, information gathering, and goal pursuit management.
To date, a few studies were conducted to examine the five-factor model of the CDSES-SF by Betz
et al. (1996) with CFA. Overall, the results seem contradictory across the studies. For instance,
Watson, Brand, Stead, and Ellis (2001) found the five-factor model to demonstrate an inadequate
fit to the data, w2(265, n ¼ 364) ¼ 807.53, comparative fit index (CFI) ¼ .83, root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA) ¼ .075, with South African college students. Hampton (2005) also
reported unfavorable fit to the data, w2(265, n ¼ 256) ¼ 784.95, CFI ¼ .79, RMSEA ¼ .08, with
Chinese college students. In similar vein, Gaudron (2011) indicated that the five-factor model to
display an inadequate fit to the data, w2(265, n ¼ 650) ¼ 1,050.78, CFI ¼ .78, RMSEA ¼ .075, with
French university students. On the other hand, Miller, Sendrowitz Roy, Brown, Thomas, and
McDaniel (2009) provided a good fit to the data with Asian American university students,
w2(265, n ¼ 267) ¼ 521.57, CFI ¼ .97, RMSEA ¼ .06 and with European American university stu-
dents, w2(265, n ¼ 239) ¼ 593.71, CFI ¼ .96, RMSEA ¼ .07. As a result of the high correlations
among the factors, Miller et al. (2009) decided to test a one-factor model (i.e., a measurement model
that fixed each of the 25 CDSES-SF items to load on one factor). The authors, however, concluded
that the five-factor model showed a significantly better model fit than the one-factor model.
Although studies that use the CDSES scales have been conducted mostly in the United States,
there are a few studies with a number of diverse samples outside the United States (Abdalla,

388
Buyukgoze-Kavas 389

1995; Creed et al., 2002; Gati, Osipow, & Givon, 1995; Gaudron, 2011; Hampton, 2005, 2006; Mau,
2000; Rowland, 2004; Watson et al., 2001). Especially, four studies assessed the reliability and the
validity of the CDSES-SF (Creed et al., 2002; Gaudron, 2011; Hampton, 2005; Watson et al., 2001).
Aforementioned, none of them confirmed the proposed five-factor model of Betz et al. (1996).
These inconsistent results might indicate that the originally proposed five-factor model may not
be the best representation of the underlying factor solution (Miller et al., 2009) or possibly can be
attributed to cross-cultural differences on the career development and decision-making processes
(Lindley, 2006). In response to calls for further studies on the equivalence of the CDSES-SF across
other U.S. racial/ethnic groups and non-English speaking countries (Creed et al., 2002; Miller et al.,
2009), the aim of the current study was to examine the reliability and the validity of the CDSES-SF
in a sample of Turkish university students.

Method
Participants
Participants of the current study were 695 university students enrolled in five different faculties at
Middle East Technical University in Turkey. Of them, 326 (46.9%) were female, 368 (52.9%) were
male, and 1 (0.1%) did not indicate gender. Participants of the study were 212 (30.5%) freshmen,
155 (22.3%) sophomores, 164 (23.6%) juniors, 163 (23.5%) seniors, and 1 (0.1%) did not report any
class. Their age ranged from 17 to 27, with a mean of 21.39 (SD ¼ 1.5).

Measures
CDSES-SF (Betz et al., 1996). The scale was developed to measure ‘‘an individual’s degree of belief
that he or she can successfully complete tasks necessary to making career decisions’’ (Betz et al.,
1996, p. 48). The short form consisted of 25 items representing Crites’ (1978) five career choice
competencies in his model of career maturity. Accordingly, self-appraisal, gathering occupational
information, goal selection, making plans for the future, and problem solving are the subscales of
the CDSES-SF. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (no confidence at all)
to 5 (complete confidence). Thus, the possible total scores changed between 25 and 125 with higher
scores on CDSES-SF indicating greater levels of career decision self-efficacy (Betz et al., 2005).
Betz et al. (1996) reported the internal consistency reliability of the short form ranged from .73
(self-appraisal) to .83 (goal selection) for the subscales and .94 for the total score.
The CDSES-SF was administered in Turkish. The steps that were followed throughout the trans-
lation process were as follows. First, the scale was given to four experts (two advanced doctoral level
counseling students and two English language experts) independently for translation into Turkish.
Second, the translations made by four experts were compared and best translation for each item was
picked. Third, the Turkish and original English versions of the scale were given to two professors of
psychological counseling and guidance and a professor of measurement and evaluation to evaluate
the correctness, clarity, wording of the items, and cultural relevancy of the Turkish-translated
version of the scale. According to the feedback received by these three faculty members, some minor
changes were made on the scale. Fourth, a separate focus group was conducted to check the
understandability, clarity, and cultural appropriateness of the items of the Turkish version of the
CDSES-SF with university students. Finally, few changes suggested by the students regarding
the wording of the items in the scale were made.
To gather basic demographics of the participants, the researcher developed a short demographic
information form that was placed before the CDSES-SF. The form included questions regarding
gender, age, class, faculty, and department.

389
390 Journal of Career Assessment 22(2)

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and a Coefficients of the CDSES-SF.

CDSES-SF M SD a Coefficient

Total 3.51 .57 .92

Self-appraisal 3.66 .66 .74
Occupational information 3.60 .61 .61
Goal selection 3.56 .72 .81
Planning 3.51 .70 .72
Problem solving 3.22 .73 .68
Note. CDSES-SF ¼ Career Decision Self-Efficacy scale–Short Form; M ¼ mean; SD ¼ standard deviation.

Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). The scale was used to measure
general perceived self-efficacy. It was originally developed by Jerusalem and Schwarzer in 1981,
in Germany, and in the meantime has been translated to various languages (Schwarzer & Jerusalem,
1995). It is a 10-item scale with a response format ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (completely
true) and yielding a total score between 10 and 40. Higher scores indicate stronger belief in self-
efficacy. The scale was adapted to Turkish by Yesilay, Schwarzer, and Jerusalem (1996), and the
internal reliability coefficient was reported as .92 for the Turkish sample.

Procedure
The data of the study were collected during 2009–2010 spring semester. Approval for conducting the
study was obtained from the Human Subjects Ethics Committee of the researcher’s institution. All
data were collected in the classroom settings by the researcher with the permission of the course
instructors. Students voluntarily participated in this study. No identifying information was requested
from the participants such as name, surname, and student id number to ensure the confidentiality and
anonymity of the participants except test–retest applications.

Results
Descriptive statistics as means and standard deviations along with coefficient a values were calcu-
lated for the total score of CDSES-SF and for its five 5-item subscales by means of SPSS 17. The
mean scores represent the average response over the 25 items of the total scale (the cumulative score
over all 25 items is divided by 25), and over the 5 items of the subscales (the sum of the response
scores for the subscale items are divided by 5; Betz et al., 2005). For the total CDSES-SF, scores
ranged from 1.60 to 5.00, with a mean score of 3.50 (SD ¼ .59). Table 1 provides the means and
standard deviations of the subscales that ranged from 3.22 (problem solving) to 3.65 (self-appraisal).
In addition, a t-test analysis was performed to examine the possible gender difference on career deci-
sion self-efficacy. Accordingly, result of the analysis revealed no significant difference between
female (M ¼ 3.49, SD ¼ .61), male (M ¼ 3.53, SD ¼ .54), and students, t(692) ¼ 1.01, p ¼ .32.
In order to check the reliability of the CDSES-SF, the internal consistency and test–retest
methods were used. The internal consistency reliability of the scale was .92 for the total score that
can be regarded as high. The reliability of the subscales ranged from .61 (occupational information)
to .81 (goal selection). Additionally, the test–retest reliability of the scale was calculated in a sample
of 52 university students based on a 2-week interval. The reliability coefficient (stability coefficient)
was .91 for the total score between these two administrations.
With the intention of providing evidence for the validity of the CDSES-SF, convergent validity
was examined by calculating a Pearson correlation coefficient between the total score of CDSES-SF
and total score of GSES (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) in a group of 125 (41 male, 84 female)

390
Buyukgoze-Kavas 391

Table 2. Fit Indices of the Measurement Models.

Model w2 df p w2/df RMSEA CFI GFI

25-Item scale
Betz et al. (1996) five-factor model 913.96 265 .001 3.4 .059 .89 .90
Miller et al. (2010) one-factor model 1,038.99 275 .001 3.8 .063 .87 .88
3-Factor model
Creed et al. (2002) 23-item scale (A) 798.83 227 .001 3.5 .060 .89 .90
Creed et al. (2002) 23-item scale (SA) 783.98 227 .001 3.5 .059 .89 .91
Hampton (2005) 13-item scale 333.91 62 .001 5.4 .079 .86 .93
4-Factor model
Gaudron (2011) 18-item scale 338.48 129 .001 2.6 .048 .94 .95

Note. CFI ¼ comparative fit index; df ¼ degrees of freedom; GFI ¼ goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA ¼ root mean square error
of approximation; (A) ¼ Australian sample; (SA) ¼ South African sample.

university students. Accordingly, the correlation between the total CDSES-SF score and GSES scale
was found to be .65 (p  .01). As expected, a significant positive correlation was observed between
two different self-efficacy measures in a way that higher levels of career decision making self-
efficacy are associated with higher levels of general self-efficacy.
Moreover, a series of CFA was conducted to determine the factor structure of the CDSES-SF for
Turkish university students. First, the originally proposed five-factor model of the CDSES-SF by
Betz et al. (1996) was tested. Subsequently, five alternative models identified in the published
literature were examined with CFA. Several recommended fit indices were used to assess model fit
(Hu & Bentler, 1998; Kline, 2005; McDonald & Ho, 2002). w2 is the most commonly used fit indices
to assess how well a model fits the observed data (Weston & Gore, 2006). A nonsignificant
w2 suggests that the proposed model is consistent with the observed data (Weston & Gore, 2006).
However, w2 is sensitive to sample size and it yields significant values with large sample size (Schu-
macker & Lomax, 2004). As suggested by several authors (e.g., McDonald & Ho, 2002), the ratio of
w2 to its degrees of freedom (w2/df) were used to deal with this limitation. The common recom-
mended cutoff value for this ratio is 3 (Kline, 2005). RMSEA is an index that corrects for a model’s
complexity (Weston & Gore, 2006). For the RMSEA, a value of 0 suggests an exact fit, a value of
.06 or less indicates good fit and a value above .08 indicates poor fit (Hu & Bentler, 1998). The CFI
compares the improvement of the fit of the researcher’s model over a null model (Weston & Gore,
2006). The CFI ranges from 0 to1 and values closer to 1 representing good fit. Specifically, a value
greater than .95 was suggested (Hu & Bentler, 1998). The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) is a measure
of the relative amount of variance and covariance in a sample covariance matrix (Byrne, 2010).
Values of GFI range from 0 to 1, with .90 or greater indicating a good fit (Byrne, 2010; Kline, 2005).
The statistical software AMOS 18 (Arbuckle, 2009) was used to perform CFA with maximum
likelihood estimation. First, Betz et al.’s five-factor model of CDSES-SF that fixed each of the
25 items to load only on their respective factor in a way consistent with Betz et al.’s (1996) model
was tested. While the values of RMSEA and GFI seemed to be acceptable, values of CFI and the w2/
df indicated inadequate fit. The fit indices of the aforementioned measurement models are shown in
Table 2. Similar to Miller et al. (2009), an examination of factor covariances revealed high-
correlation coefficients among all five factors, ranged from .78 (occupational information and
problem solving) to .98 (occupational information and planning). Accordingly, the one-factor model
(Miller et al., 2009), which fixed each of the 25 items to load on one latent factor was tested.
However, results of the CFA indicated that the one-factor model (Miller et al., 2009) of CDSES-
SF did not provide acceptable fit to the data.

391
392 Journal of Career Assessment 22(2)

Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and a Coefficients of the Four-Factor 18-Item Scale.

Four-factor 18-item scale (Gaudron, 2011) M SD a

Total 3.49 .57 .88

Goal selection (5 items) 3.58 .70 .77
Problem solving (3 items) 3.14 .88 .64
Information gathering (5 items) 3.70 .63 .67
Goal pursuit management (5 items) 3.42 .72 .75
Note. M ¼ mean; SD ¼ standard deviation.

To estimate the best model for Turkish university students, other previous factor analytic studies
including Creed et al.’s (2002) three-factor model for Australian and South African, Hampton’s
(2005) three-factor model, and Gaudron’s (2011) four-factor model were also tested with CFA.
Creed et al.’s (2002) three-factor model based on Australian sample, which composed of 23 items
of CDSES-SF to load information gathering, decision making, and problem-solving factors, exhib-
ited poor model fit. In addition, the three-factor model of Creed et al.’s (2002) based on South Afri-
can sample, which consisted of 23 items of CDSES-SF to load on information gathering, decision
making, and problem-solving factors, indicated an inadequate fit. Hampton’s (2005) three-factor
model, which fixed 13 CDSES-SF items to load on decision making, information gathering, and
problem solving latent factors, did not fit the data properly (see Table 2, second section). Finally,
Gaudron’s (2011) four-factor model, which fixed 18 CDSES-SF items to load on goal selection,
problem solving, information gathering, and goal pursuit management latent factors, was tested and
demonstrated good fit to the data (see Table 2, last section).
According to the results of CFAs, the best model in this sample was Gaudron’s (2011) four-factor
model with 18 items of CDSES-SF. In this model, the first factor (goal selection) composed of 5
items including 3 goal selection items (Items 6, 11, and 16), and 2 accurate self-appraisal items
(Items 9 and 22). The second factor (problem solving) contained 3 items from problem-solving sub-
scales (Items 13, 17, and 25). The third factor (information gathering) consisted of 5 items including
4 occupational information items (Items 1, 15, 16, and 23), and 1 planning item (Item 21). The last
factor (goal pursuit management) formed 5 items including 2 problem-solving items (Items 6 and
11), 2 planning items (Items 9 and 22), and 1 accurate self-appraisal item (Item 18). This four-
factor model accounted for 38.6%, 45.7%, 10.3%, and 47.8% of the variance in goal selection
(GS), problem solving (PS), information gathering (IG), and goal pursuit management (GPM) items,
respectively.
Means, standard deviations, and values of coefficient a values were calculated for the four sub-
scales and for the total 18-item CDSES-SF. As presented in Table 3, the reliability of the total score
was .88, which can be considered high. The reliabilities of the subscales scores ranged between .64
and .77. The correlations among the four factors of the 18-item CDSES-SF ranged from moderate to
high (goal selection–problem solving ¼ .73, problem solving–information gathering ¼ .67, informa-
tion gathering–goal pursuit management ¼ .73, goal selection–information gathering ¼ .82, prob-
lem solving–goal pursuit management ¼ .66, goal selection–goal pursuit management ¼ .80). In
addition, all of the estimated model parameters (n ¼ 42) were statistically significant (p < .05), and
they ranged from .34 to .75 (see Table 4).

Discussion
The purpose of the study was to examine the reliability and validity of the CDSES-SF among Turk-
ish university students. Consistent with previous studies, the result of this study supported a high a

392
Buyukgoze-Kavas 393

Table 4. Parameter Estimates for the 18-Item CDSES-SF for Turkish University Students.

Items Parameter estimates

Factor 1 (goal selection)

Q9 Determine what your ideal job would be .67
Q16 Make a career decision and then not worry about whether it was right or wrong .60
Q11 Choose a career that will fit your preferred lifestyle .65
Q6 Select one occupation from a list of potential occupations you are considering .70
Q22 Define the type of lifestyle you would like to live .54
Factor 2 (problem solving)
Q13 Change majors if you did not like your first choice .52
Q17 Change occupations if you are not satisfied with the one you enter .64
Q25 Identify some reasonable major or career alternatives if you are unable to get .66
your first choice
Factor 3 (information gathering)
Q23 Find information about graduate or professional schools .58
Q15 Find out about the average yearly earnings of people in an occupation .50
Q21 Identify employers, firms, and institutions relevant to your career possibilities .75
Q19 Talk with a person already employed in a field you are interested in .52
Q1 Use the Internet to find information about occupations that interest you .34
Factor 4 (goal pursuit management)
Q8 Persistently work at your major or career goal even when you get frustrated .63
Q7 Determine the steps you need to take to successfully complete your chosen major .63
Q3 Make a plan of your goals for the next 5 years .58
Q4 Determine the steps to take if you are having academic trouble with an aspect of .63
your chosen major
Q18 Figure out what you are and are not ready to sacrifice to achieve your career goals .58
Note. CDSES-SF ¼ Career Decision Self-Efficacy scale–Short Form. The question numbers relate to the original five subscales
from the CDSES-SF (Betz et al., 1996). Q1, Q10, Q15, Q19, and Q23 ¼ items for occupational information subscale; Q5, Q9,
Q14, Q18, and Q22 ¼ self-appraisal; Q2, Q6, Q11, Q16, and Q20 ¼ goal selection; Q3, Q7, Q12, Q21, and Q24 ¼ planning;
and Q4, Q8, Q13, Q17, and Q25 ¼ problem solving.

reliability coefficient for the total scale (.92) and moderate to high a reliability coefficients (.61 to
.81) for the five subscales (e.g., Betz & Klein Voyten, 1997; Creed et al., 2002; Hampton, 2005). In
addition, the test–retest reliability coefficient (r ¼ .91) was higher than those reported in the past
studies (Gaudron, 2011; Luzzo, 1993; Mau, 2000). This may be a result of short retest interval than
those previously conducted studies.
Similar to previous studies, no significant gender differences were found on career decision self-
efficacy (Betz et al., 1996; Chung, 2002; Creed et al., 2002; Gaudron, 2011). However, Mau (2000)
found that among Taiwanese undergraduates, women had lower career decision self-efficacy than
men. Thus, as suggested by Lindley (2006), the interaction between gender and culture is important
to consider with respect to career decision self-efficacy.
The convergent validity of the CDSES-SF was provided by a strong relationship (r ¼ .65,
p < .001) between the total scores of the CDSES-SF and GSES (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995).
Using another GSES (Sherer et al., 1982), for example, Betz and Klein (1996) found correlation
coefficients of .59 for males and .50 for females. Hampton (2006) also reported a moderate correla-
tion (r ¼ .35) between CDSES-SF and GSES (Sherer et al., 1982).
On the other hand, the results of this study failed to support the hypothesized five-factor structure
of the CDSES-SF. Previous factor analytic studies have also largely failed to support the five-factor
structure of the CDSES-SF (e.g., Betz et al., 1996; Betz & Luzzo, 1996; Chaney, Hammond, Betz, &
Multon, 2007; Peterson & delMas, 1998). In addition, this finding was similar to other international
studies (Gaudron, 2011; Hampton, 2005; Watson et al., 2001). This finding, however, was

393
394 Journal of Career Assessment 22(2)

inconsistent with Miller et al.’s (2009) findings obtained in the groups of Asian American and
European American university students. The authors claimed that the difference between studies that
used American versus non-American samples might reflect the fact that the behaviors associated
with career decision self-efficacy may vary across cultures (Miller et al., 2009).
Since Taylor and Betz (1983) initial work that introduced a measure of career decision-making
self-efficacy, CDSES has gained considerable research attention. Especially, psychometric proper-
ties of the CDSES have been examined by several researchers. Almost all studies investigated factor
structure of the CDSES-SF failed to support Betz et al.’s five-factor model, with the considerable
exception of Miller et al.’s (2009) study. In accordance with that many alternative models with one
to four factors have been proposed. Subsequently, the five empirically derived alternative measure-
ment models (Creed et al., 2002; Gaudron, 2011; Hampton, 2005; Miller et al., 2009) were tested in
the present study. Accordingly, Miller et al.’s (2009) one-factor model, Creed et al.’s (2002) two
different three-factor model for Australian and South African, Hampton’s (2005) three-factor model,
and Gaudron’s (2011) four-factor model were tested with CFA, respectively.
Only Gaudron’s (2011) four-factor structure demonstrated a good fit to the data among the tested
alternative measurement models. As in Gaudron’s study, the findings of this study confirmed that the
CDSES-SF reflected four factors of goal selection, problem solving, information gathering, and goal
pursuit management. Regardless of the different composition of the all factors, Gaudron (2011)
labeled the first three factors as in past studies (Chaney et al., 2007; Creed et al., 2002; Hampton,
2005). Since the items of the fourth factor appeared to be related one’s ability and persistence to
organize, plan, and manage one’s workload toward achieving a career goal, this factor was labeled
as goal pursuit management (Gaudron, 2011). Gaudron (2011) reported the following values of
coefficient a for four subscales: goal selection (.69), problem solving (.73), information gathering
(.67), and goal pursuit management (.69). The total score (18 items) value was reported as .83.
In the present study, reliability levels of the 18-item CDSES-SF for the total score and four sub-
scales were, except problem solving and information gathering subscales, higher than those obtained
from French university students. The reliability coefficient of the problem solving subscale was
found lower than Gaudron’s (2011) reported value; however, information gathering subscale had the
same reliability coefficient in both studies. Further, all fit indices of the four-factor model gathered
from the Turkish sample (w2/df ¼ 2.6, RMSEA ¼ .048, CFI ¼ .94, GFI ¼ .95) were also found to be
similar to those obtained from French sample (w2/df ¼ 2.8, RMSEA ¼ .054, CFI ¼ .91, GFI ¼ .94).
Even French and Turkish university students seem to have different cultural background; similarity
of the results may be explained by the changing cultural context of Turkey. Since the 1980s, Turkey
has been undergoing rapid economic and social changes parallel to the worldwide trends toward lib-
eralization and globalization (Karakitapoğlu-Aygün & Imamoğlu, 2002). Thus, Turkey has been living
through a transition period between Eastern and Western attitudes, values, and lifestyles. The rapid
change in institutions, values, attitudes, and many more aspects increasingly reflects such Western val-
ues as independence, autonomy, and competition (Mocan-Aydın, 2000). In such a transition period,
traditional values may exist side by side with new individualistic values. Several studies conducted
in Turkey also provide evidence for such an integration of collectivistic traditional values with indi-
vidualistic attitudes and values (e.g., Çileli, 2000; Göregenli, 1997; Karakitapoğlu-Aygün & Imamo-
ğlu, 2002). Therefore, considering the changing cultural context of Turkey, confirmation of the French
version of CDSES-SF by the Turkish sample may not be a surprise.
Although the present study verified the one of the empirically derived measurement models of the
CDSES-SF validated multidimensionality of the scale, the model does not reflect the all five
domains of career choice competence proposed by Crites (1961). For example, the first factor of
Gaudron’s (2011) four-factor model which is goal selection was a combination of the 2 items of
self-appraisal and the 3 items of the goal selection factors of the CDSES-SF. This finding may be
considered as a further evidence for the suggestion of Creed et al. (2002) that the self-appraisal and

394
Buyukgoze-Kavas 395

goal setting components may not be adequately reflected in the 25-item CDSES-SF when used with
different cultural populations. Thus, some improvements may be required for the CDSES-SF scale,
specifically for self-appraisal competency.
On the other hand, the findings of this study (high internal consistency, high test–retest reliability,
evidence of convergent validity, and high inter-subscale correlations) indicated that the total score of
CDSES-SF can be used as a generalized measure of career decision-making self-efficacy as recom-
mended by several authors (e.g., Creed et al., 2002; Peterson & delMas, 1998; Taylor & Popma,
1990; Watson et al., 2001) with Turkish university students.
These findings should be considered within the limitations of the study. Participants of this study
were comprised of students from one of the most high-ranking, prestigious, and competitive state
universities in Turkey. Hence, obtained findings can only be generalized to the similar populations.
Even if the sample of the current study represented all faculties and classes, it did not rely on one of
the random sampling that limits the generalizability of the findings. It would be useful for future
testing of reliability and validity of the CDSES-SF to include more diverse samples recruited from
different age groups and different type of universities including state and private from different
regions of Turkey. Consequently, the findings of this study need to be cross validated.

Authors’ Note
This article is partly based on author’s doctoral dissertation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article: This study was funded by the State Planning Organization as a part of author’s doctoral dis-
sertation. Grant no: BAP-08-11DPT-2002K120510.

References
Abdalla, I. A. (1995). Sex, sex-role self-concepts and career decision-making self-efficacy among Arab stu-
dents. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 23, 389–402.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2009). AMOS 18 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84,
191–215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
Betz, N. E., Hammond, M. S., & Multon, K. D. (2005). Reliability and validity of five-level response continua
for the Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 13, 131–149.
Betz, N. E., & Klein, K. L. (1996). Relationships among measures of career self-efficacy, generalized self-
efficacy, and global self-esteem. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 285–298.
Betz, N. E., & Klein Voyten, K. (1997). Efficacy and outcome expectations influence career exploration and
decidedness. The Career Development Quarterly, 46, 179–189.
Betz, N. E., Klein, K. L., & Taylor, K. M. (1996). Evaluation of a short form of the career decision-making
self-efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 47–57.
Betz, N. E., & Luzzo, D. A. (1996). Career assessment and the career decision-making self efficacy scale.
Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 313–328.
Betz, N. E., & Sterling, D. (1993). Criterion-related and construct validity of fear of commitment. Journal of
Career Assessment, 1, 21–34.

395
396 Journal of Career Assessment 22(2)

Blustein, D. L. (1989). The role of the goal instability and career self-efficacy in the career exploration process.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 194–203.
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming
(2nd ed.). Madison, NY: Routledge.
Chaney, D., Hammond, M. S., Betz, N. E., & Multon, K. D. (2007). The reliability and factor structure of the
Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale-SF with African Americans. Journal of Career Assessment, 15, 194–205.
Chung, Y. B. (2002). Career decision-making self-efficacy and career commitment: Gender and ethnic differ-
ences among college students. Journal of Career Development, 28, 277–284.
Creed, P. A., Patton, W., & Watson, M. B. (2002). Cross-cultural equivalence of the career decision-making
self-efficacy scale-short form: An Australian and South African comparison. Journal of Career
Assessment, 10, 327–342.
Crites, J. O. (1961). A model for the measurement of vocational maturity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 8,
255–259.
Crites, J. O. (1978). Career maturity inventory. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
Çileli, M. (2000). Change in value orientations of Turkish youth from 1989 to 1995. The Journal of Psychology,
134, 297–305.
Gati, I., Osipow, S. H., & Givon, M. (1995). Gender differences in career decision making: The content and
structure of preferences. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 204–216.
Gaudron, J.-P. (2011). A psychometric evaluation of the Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale Short-Form
among French university students. Journal of Career Assessment, 19, 420–430.
Gianakos, I. (1999). Patterns of career choice and career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 54, 244–258.
Göregenli, M. (1997). Individualist and collectivist tendencies in a Turkish sample. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 28, 787–794.
Gushue, G. V., Scanlan-Kolone, R. L., Pantzer, K. M., & Clark, C. P. (2006). The relationship of career
decision-making self-efficacy, vocational identity, and career exploration behavior in African American
high school students. Journal of Career Development, 33, 19–28.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 18, 326–339.
Hampton, N. Z. (2005). Testing for the structure of the career decision self-efficacy scale-short form among
Chinese college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 13, 98–113.
Hampton, N. Z. (2006). A psychometric evaluation of the career decision self-efficacy scale-short form in
Chinese high school students. Journal of Career Development, 33, 142–155.
Hartman, R. O., & Betz, N. E. (2007). The five-factor model and career self-efficacy: General and domain
specific relationships. Journal of Career Assessment, 15, 145–161.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized
model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.
Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z., & Imamoğlu, E. O. (2002). Value dimensions of Turkish adults and university
students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 333–351.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
Lindley, L. D. (2006). The paradox of self-efficacy: Research with diverse populations. Journal of Career
Assessment, 14, 143–160.
Luzzo, D. A. (1993). Reliability and validity testing of the career decision-making self efficacy scale.
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 26, 137–142.
Mau, W. C. (2000). Cultural differences in career decision-making styles and self-efficacy. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 57, 365–378.
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses.
Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82.

396
Buyukgoze-Kavas 397

Miller, M. J., Sendrowitz Roy, K., Brown, S. D., Thomas, J., & McDaniel, C. (2009). A confirmatory test of the
factor structure of the short form of the career decision self-efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 17,
507–519.
Mocan-Aydın, G. (2000). Western models of counseling and psychotherapy within Turkey: Crossing cultural
boundaries. The Counseling Psychologist, 28, 281–298.
Munson, W. W., & Savickas, M. L. (1998). Relation between leisure and career development of college
students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 243–253.
Nilsson, J. E., Schmidt, C. K., & Meek, W. D. (2002). Reliability generalization: An examination of the Career
Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 647–658.
O’Brien, K. M. (2003). Measuring career self-efficacy promoting confidence and happiness at work. In S. J.
Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures
(pp. 109–126). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Peterson, S. L., & delMas, R. C. (1998). The component structure of career decision-making self-efficacy for
underprepared college students. Journal of Career Development, 24, 209–225.
Rowland, K. (2004). Career decision-making skills of high school students in the Bahamas. Journal of Career
Development, 31, 1–13.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright & M.
Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp.
35–37). Windsor, England: NFER-Nelson.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self-
efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663–671.
Taylor, K. M., & Betz, N. E. (1983). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the understanding and treatment of
career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 63–81.
Taylor, K. M., & Popma, J. (1990). Construct validity of the career decision-making self efficacy scale and the
relationship of CDMSE to vocational indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 17–31.
Watson, M. B., Brand, H. J., Stead, G. B., & Ellis, R. R. (2001). Confirmatory factor analysis of the career
decision-making self-efficacy scale among South African university students. Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 27, 43–46.
Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist,
34, 719–751.
Yesilay, A., Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1996). Turkish adaptation of the general perceived self efficacy
scale. Retrieved from http://userpage.fuberlin.de/*health/turk.htm

397