The primary purpose of this research was to examine the vocational structure for Korean college students based on Holland’s hexagon theory. The secondary purpose of this research was to provide validity data for using the Korean Strong Interest Inventory in Korea. With a sample of 829 Korean college students, using the Strong Interest Inventory 1994 version in Korean, the results showed that there was an overall significant difference between male and female students. There were good fits of Holland’s circular order model to the data for both male and female groups. Both male and female Korean students had similar fit indices in their size.
Anderson, M. Z., Tracey, T. J., & Rounds, J. (1997). Examining the invariance of Holland’s vocational interest model across gender. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 349-364.
2.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
Davison, M. L. (1983). Multidimensional scaling. New York: John Wiley.
4.
Farh, J., Leong, F. T. L., & Law, K. S. (1998). Cross-cultural validity of Holland’s model in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 425-440.
5.
Fouad, N. A. (2002). Cross-cultural differences in vocational interests: Between-groups differences on the Strong Interest Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 283-289.
6.
Fouad, N. A., Cudeck, R., & Hansen, J. C. (1984). Convergent validity of the Spanish and English forms of the Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory for bilingual Hispanic high school students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 339-348.
7.
Fouad, N. A., & Dancer, L. S. (1992). Cross-cultural structure of interests: Mexico and the United States. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 339-348.
8.
Hansen, J. C., & Campbell, D. P. (1985). Manual for the SVIB-SCII(4th ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
9.
Hansen, J. C., Collins, R. C., Swanson, J. L., & Fouad, N. A. (1993). Gender differences in the structure of interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 188-193.
10.
Harmon, L. W., Hansen, J. C., Borgen, F. H., & Hammer, A. L. (1994). Strong Interest Inventory: Applications and technical guide. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
11.
Hines, H. (1983). The Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory: A study of its validity with a sample of Black college students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45(06),1901B. (University Microfilms No. 84-19, 502)
12.
Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
13.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments(2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
14.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments(3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
15.
Hubert, L., & Arabie, P. (1987). Evaluating order hypotheses within proximity matrices. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 172-178.
16.
Kim, J., Kim, M., & Sim, H. (2001). The manual of Korean Strong Interest Inventory. Seoul, Korea: Korean Psychological Test Institute.
17.
Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29, 1-27.
18.
Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
19.
Lattimore, R. R., & Borgen, F. H. (1999). Validity of the 1994 Strong Interest Inventory with racial and ethnic groups in the United States. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 185-195.
20.
Leong, F. T. L., Austin, J. T., Sekaran, U., & Komarraju, M. (1998). An evaluation of the crosscultural validity of Holland’s theory: Career choices by workers in India. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 441-455.
21.
Prediger, D. J. (1982). Dimensions underlying Holland’s hexagon: Missing link between interests and occupations?Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 259-287.
22.
Rounds, J. B., Jr., Davison, M. L., & Dawis, R. V. (1979). The fit between Strong Campbell Interest Inventory General Occupational Themes and Holland’s hexagonal model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 15, 303-315.
23.
Rounds, J., & Tracey, T. J. (1996). Cross-cultural structural equivalence of RIASEC models and measures. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 310-329.
24.
Rounds, J., Tracey, T. J., & Hubert, L. (1992). Methods for evaluating vocational interest structural hypotheses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 239-259.
25.
Rounds, J. B., & Zevon, M. A. (1983). Multidimensional scaling research in vocational psychology. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 15, 303-315.
26.
Ryan, J. M., Tracey, T. J. G., & Rounds, J. (1996). Generalizability of Holland’s structure of vocational interests across ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 330-337.
27.
Scott, T. B., & Anadon, M. (1980). A comparison of the vocational interest profiles of Native American and Caucasian college-bound students. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 13, 35-42.
28.
Soh, S., & Leong, F. T. L. (2001). Cross-cultural validation of Holland’s theory in Singapore: Beyond structural validity of RIASEC. Journal of Career Assessment, 9, 115-133.
29.
Swaney, K. B. (1995). Technical manual: Revised unisex edition of the ACT interest inventory(UNIACT). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing.
30.
Swanson, J. L. (1992). The structure of vocational interests for African-American college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 144-157.
31.
Tang, M. (2001). Investigation of the structure of vocational interests of Chinese college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 9, 365-379.
32.
Tracey, T. J. G. (1997). RANDALL: A Microsoft Fortran program for a randomization test of hypothesized order relations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 164-168.
33.
Utz, P., & Korben, D. (1976). The construct validity of the occupational themes on the Strong- Campbell Interest Inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 31-42.
