The Strong Interest Inventory uses large up-to-date norming groups for many scales, but the groups have exceptionally high education. Scores based on the atypical norms should be interpreted cautiously. The effect of the groups on construction of the occupational and nonoccupational scales is discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AckermanP. L.HeggestadE. D. (1997) Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.
2.
GottfredsonL. (1980) Construct validity of Holland's occupational typology in terms of prestige, census, Department of Labor, and other classification systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 697–714.
3.
HarmonL. W.HansenJ. C.BorgenF. H.HammerA. L. (1994) Strong Interest Inventory: Applications and technical guide. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer. Press.
4.
KaufmanA. S.McLeanJ. E. (1996) Profiles of Hispanic adolescents and adults on the Holland themes and Basic Interest Scales of the Strong Interest Inventory. Psychological Reports, 79, 1279–1288.
5.
KaufmanA. S.McLeanJ. E. (1998) An investigation into the relationship between interests and intelligence. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, 279–295.
6.
LattimoreR. R.BorgenF. 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.
7.
SlaneyR. B.BrownM. T. (1983) Effects of race and socioeconomic status on career choice variables among college men. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 257–269.
8.
StrongE. K.Jr. (1943) Vocational interests of men and women. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer. Press.
9.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1998) Educational attainment in the United States: March 1998 (update). Washington, DCAuthor.
