The document summarizes research on adapting a brief Italian version of Holland's RIASEC model for measuring career interests. Exploratory factor analysis supported a six-factor solution, consistent with the RIASEC model. The subscales showed satisfactory internal consistency, except for the Enterprising subscale. Gender and academic track differences emerged in some interest areas. Correlations between the brief measure and a longer established measure provided further support, except again for the Enterprising scale. The brief Italian RIASEC measure shows potential for career assessment but requires refinement, particularly of the Enterprising scale.

1. WORKSHOP
“SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOL: THE WAY FORWARD”
Florence, Auditorium Sant’Apollonia
21-22 October, 2013
BRIEF ITALIAN RIASEC SCALE:
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Mara Martini, Paola Gatti, & Chiara Ghislieri
University of Turin
Department of Psychology

2. Theoretical background
Research and method
Results and conclusions
Introduction
Professional interests are a central topic in career guidance
research and practice, in particular for adolescents.
One of the most important theories was proposed by Holland
(1959) who identifies six kinds of interests and organize them
in the RIASEC (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social,
Enterprising, Conventional) model.
To measure the interests defined by Holland’s theory in career
counseling projects, were developed complex instruments such
as the Self-Directed Search (SDS; Holland, Fritzsche, Powell,
1997), extensively used also in Italy in the Poláček’s (2003)
version.
A shorter free domain instrument was recently proposed by
Armstrong, Allison and Rounds (2008).
2

3. Theoretical background
Research and method
Results and conclusions
1. Holland’s model of interests
The six interest-based categories proposed by Holland (1959; 1997) to
describe individuals and occupations are:
Realistic
Conventional
Enterprising
Investigative
Artistic
Social
By matching an individual’s interests to occupational characteristics by
Holland category, it is possible to identify potential career choices useful for
career counseling programs (McDaniel, Snell, 1999; Armstrong et al., 2008).
3

4. Theoretical background
Research and method
1. Advantages
Holland’s model
and
Results and conclusions
limitations
of
As Guichard and Huteau (2003), among the others, put in evidence, the widely
used Holland’s model shows some advantages but also some limitations:
Advantages:
it is immediately usable in the career counseling practice: instruments as
SDS allow to apply directly the model in guidance projects
it shows an acceptable validity: several studies put in evidence a
substantial coherence between the Holland’s typology and the
educational/occupational choices
it is in a halfway point between diagnostic and educative guidance
approaches.
-
Limitations:
it reduces the whole range of professions to six categories
it does not evidence relations of the six types of interests to parental
education and to aspects as sex or social prestige
some studies question the six-vertexes structure of the model: C and E
types seem quite near, so we can imagine a pentagon more than an
hexagon (Vrignaud, Bernaud, 1994).
4

5. Theoretical background
Research and method
Results and conclusions
2. Aim of the study
The present work is aimed to propose preliminary analyses
on an Italian adaptation of Armstrong and colleagues’
(2008) public domain scales, which are not yet available in
Italian.
-
As Armstrong and colleagues (2008) put in evidence, a shorter
free domain scale to measure occupational interests can be
particularly useful in research projects:
projects
where the length of current RIASEC measures may hinder
certain types of research
where the copyright restrictions used by test publishers may
limit the types of research questions that you can ask above all
in not funded projects (see also Goldberg, 1999).
5

6. Theoretical background
Research and method
Results and conclusions
1. Participants and procedure
Respondents in this study consisted of 407 students in the
North-West of Italy.
Type of high school
Science: 47.7%
Artistic: 23.1%
Humanities: 10.1%
Socio-pedagogical: 9.8%
Technical: 9.3%
Year of high
school
4th: 28%
5th: 72%
407
respondents
Sex
Female: 57.9%
Male:
42.1%
City/town
Asti: 64.1%
Cuneo: 24.8%
Turin: 11.1%
Among the 407 respondents, 33 filled in also the SDS scale
in the Poláček’s version.
6

7. Theoretical background
Research and method
Results and conclusions
2. Measures
The brief free domain RIASEC scale was developed by
Armstrong and colleagues (2008) in two versions, selecting 8+8
items for each RIASEC type from the Interest Profiler (Lewis,
Rivkin, 1999) and the O’NET occupations. Each version of the scale
is made up of 48 items on a five-point Likert-type response format
(1 strongly dislike - 5 strongly like).
For the present work, Set A and Set B of interest profile items were
translated in Italian and checked by the method of back
translation. We will show just the results obtained on Set A,
because the sample for Set B is being collected.
The Self-Directed Search (Holland et al., 1997; Poláček, 2003) is
made up of 228 items, including activities, competency statements
occupations, and self-ratings of abilities, with 38 items used to
measure each type.
7

8. Theoretical background
Research and method
Results and conclusions
3. Analyses
We used the software SPSS 20 for the analyses:
After descriptive analysis of each item (M, SD, Asymmetry,
Kurtosis), we calculated Exploratory Factor Analysis and
Cronbach’s alpha for each factor
Correlations among the factors and analysis of variance have
been then investigated
Using the subsample of 33 respondents, correlations between
the two instruments were finally analysed.
8

9. Theoretical background
1. EFA
Research and method
Results and conclusions
(a)
Items
Loading
ENGLISH ITEMS
ITALIAN TRANSLATION
Fix a broken faucet
6. Aggiustare un rubinetto rotto
.82
Operate a grinding machine in a factory
5 Far funzionare una macchina in una fabbrica
.76
Assemble products in a factory
7. Assemblare pezzi in fabbrica
.75
Install flooring in houses
8. Installare il parquet nelle case
.71
Lay brick or tile
2. Mettere mattoni o tegole
.70
Assemble electronic parts
4. Assemblare pezzi elettronici
.66
Work on an offshore oil-drilling rig
3. Lavorare su una piattaforma petrolifera
.60
Test the quality of parts before shipment
1. Verificare la qualità dei pezzi prima della
spedizione
.34
Conduct biological research
5. Condurre una ricerca biologica
.94
Do research on plants or animals
3. Fare ricerca su piante o animali
.84
Work in a biology lab
7. Lavorare in un laboratorio di biologia
.83
Develop a new medical treatment or procedure
4. Sviluppare nuove cure o procedure mediche
.78
Study animal behavior
2. Studiare il comportamento degli animali
.69
Study the structure of the human body
1. Studiare la struttura del corpo umano
.65
Make a map of the bottom of an ocean
8. Tracciare una mappa del fondale di un oceano
.64
Study whales and other types of marine life
6. Studiare le balene o altre tipologie di vita marina
.63
R
I
Factorial solution: 6 Factors, 51.43% Explained variance; GLS method, Promax rotation. 9

10. Theoretical background
1. EFA
Research and method
Results and conclusions
(b)
Items
Loading
ENGLISH ITEMS
ITALIAN TRANSLATION
Write a song
4. Scrivere una canzone
.81
Direct a play
2. Dirigere un’opera teatrale
.79
Play a musical instrument
6. Suonare uno strumento musicale
.76
Conduct a musical choir
1. Condurre un coro musicale
.73
Write books or plays
5. Scrivere un libro o un’opera teatrale
.72
Design sets for plays
8. Disegnare la scenografia per opere teatrali
.44
Design artwork for magazines
3. Disegnare illustrazioni per i giornali
.36
Perform stunts for a movie or television show
7. Eseguire acrobazie in un film o in uno spettacolo
televisivo
.25
Help people with family-related problems
5. Aiutare le persone con problemi in famiglia
.90
Help people who have problems with drugs or
alcohol
3. Aiutare persone con problemi di droga o alcool
.84
Supervise the activities of children at a camp
6. Supervisionare le attività di bambini in campeggio
.76
Teach children how to read
7. Insegnare a leggere ai bambini
.72
Help elderly people with their daily activities
8. Aiutare le persone anziane nelle loro attività
quotidiane
.72
Do volunteer work at a non-profit organization
2. Fare il volontario in un’organizzazione non profit
.66
Give career guidance to people
1. Dare consigli sulla loro carriera alle persone
.48
Teach an individual an exercise routine
4. Insegnare a un individuo esercizi da svolgere
quotidianamente
.40
A
S
10
Factorial solution: 6 Factors, 51.43% Explained variance; GLS method, Promax rotation.

11. Theoretical background
1. EFA
Research and method
Results and conclusions
(c)
Items
Loading
ENGLISH ITEMS
ITALIAN TRANSLATION
Manage a clothing store
5. Gestire un negozio di vestiti
.68
Operate a beauty salon or barber shop
4. Gestire un salone di bellezza o un negozio di
barbiere
.66
Run a toy store
8. Aprire un negozio di giocattoli
.42
Sell merchandise at a department store
3. Vendere merce in un grande magazzino
.40
Manage the operations of a hotel
2. Gestire le attività di un hotel
.38
Sell houses
7. Vendere case
.36
Sell restaurant franchises to individuals
1. Vendere esercizi commerciali in franchising
-
Manage a department within a large company
6. Dirigere un’unità di lavoro di una grande azienda
-
Use a computer program to generate customer bills
3. Utilizzare un programma computerizzato di
fatturazione
.85
Maintain employee records
4. Aggiornare la documentazione degli impiegati
.81
Inventory supplies using a hand-held computer
2. Fare l’inventario dei rifornimenti con un computer
.79
Keep shipping and receiving records
8. Occuparsi della spedizione/ricezione di documenti
.78
Generate the monthly payroll checks for an office
1. Predisporre i cedolini mensili degli stipendi in un
ufficio
.78
Compute and record statistical and other numerical
data
5. Elaborare e registrare dati numerici e statistici
.77
Handle customers’ bank transactions
7. Gestire le transazioni bancarie dei clienti
.76
Operate a calculator
6. Usare un calcolatore
.75
E
C
11
Factorial solution: 6 Factors, 51.43% Explained variance; GLS method, Promax rotation.

12. Theoretical background
Research and method
2. Correlations
Variable
Results and conclusions
(a)
1
2
3
2. I
.26**
-
3. A
.13**
.28**
4. S
.01
.33**
4
5
6
1. R
5. E
.26**
6. C
.26**
.14**
.01
.33**
-
.18**
.15**
-.07
-.05
.45**
-
Cronbach’s Alpha
.85
.91
.83
.88
.76
.92
M
10.33
23.67
22.73
25.48
17.82
11.61
SD
7.10
8.25
9.26
8.36
8.98
6.09
N = 407 * p <.05; ** p <.01
12

13. Theoretical background
Research and method
2. Correlations
Variable
1. R
1
2
3
Results and conclusions
(b)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-
2. I
.30
-
3. A
-.02
.44** -
4. S
-.05
.52** .61** -
5. E
.23
.61** .18
.19
-
6. C
.10
.01
-.18
.05
7. R_sds_activities
.70** .16
8. I_sds_activities
.17
.72** .32
9. A_sds_activities
-.20
.37*
10. S_sds_activities
-.15
11. E_sds_activities
12. C_sds_activities
.09
.04
-.16
.24
.29
.37*
.12
-
.05
.25
-
.71** .55** .04
-.08
-.03
.42*
.44
.43*
.73** .05
-.34
-.31
.28
.44**
-.07
.01
-.11
-.17
.16
.22
.24
.21
-.01
-.15
.17
-.11
-.31
-.28
.16
.37*
.43*
.18
-.33
-.31
.50** -
N = 33 * p <.05; ** p <.01
13

14. Theoretical background
Research and method
2. Correlations
Variable
1. R
1
2
3
Results and conclusions
(c)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-
2. I
.30
-
3. A
-.02
.44** -
4. S
-.05
.52** .61** -
5. E
.23
.61** .18
.19
-
6. C
.10
.01
-.18
.05
7. R_sds
.58** -.15
8. I_sds
.20
.75** .25
9. A_sds
-.13
.30
10. S_sds
-.12
11. E_sds
12. C_sds
.09
.04
-.23
.26
.18
.43*
.08
-
.07
.26
-
.71** .56** .01
-.10
-.01
.20
.30
.31
.64** .08
-.37*
-.08
.08
.51**
-.07
-.03
-.20
-.22
.32
.02
.35*
.01
-.05
.14
.16
-.20
-.14
-.31
.07
.19
.48** .07
-.01
-.08
N = 33 * p <.05; ** p <.01
.63** -
14

15. Theoretical background
Research and method
Results and conclusions
3. Analysis of variance
T-test puts in evidence gender differences:
- males show higher levels of R [t(120,08) = -5.25, p < .001] and
C [t(314) = -2.42, p < .01 ] than females
-females show higher levels of S [t(174,54) = 5.63, p < .001]
than males.
Anova puts in evidence some differences among types of high
school:
school
-Humanities and Science show higher levels of I than Artistic,
Socio-pedagogical and Technical [F(4, 401) = 8.51, p < .001]
-Socio-pedagogical shows higher levels of S than Technical,
Artistic, and Science; moreover Humanities and Science show
higher levels of S than Technical [F(4, 400) = 4.75, p < .005].
15

16. Theoretical background
Research and method
Results and conclusions
4. Discussions and conclusions
The exploratory factor analysis results in a six-factor solution, in line
with expectations. Factor loadings of the items and internal
consistency of the subscales are satisfactory. An exception is the E
subscale: factor loadings of items are quite low and two of “E items”
merge into the C subscale, so they were eliminated.
Consistently with the expectations, then, each subscale of the brief
instrument correlates with the correspondent activities subscale of the
SDS and with the correspondent SDS profile. An exception is, also in
this case, the E subscale that does not correlate with the E SDS
activities subscale nor with the E SDS profile. The C brief subscale,
then, doesn’t correlate with the C SDS profile.
Our results are quite coherent with Armstrong and colleagues’ results.
Cronbach’s alpha for all the subscales is satisfying, ranging between
.76 and .92. Convergent validity (correlations of the brief scale with
the SDS activities and SDS profiles), then, is coherent with Armstrong
and colleagues’ results, with the exception of E and C subscales.
16

17. Theoretical background
Research and method
Results and conclusions
4. Conclusions – limitations and
further developments
Among the limitations of this study:
the dimension of the sub-sample which filled in the SDS so that we
could not deeply test convergent validity
the ongoing administration of Set B so that we could not compare the
two versions of the scale.
Among possible developments of this study:
to administer both scales (brief free domain RIASEC scale and SDS) to a
larger sample of participants in order to measure correlations and to test
the brief scale also through a CFA, providing in this way further evidence of
the construct validity (Hinkin, 1998)
to administer the scale to a wider well-balanced Italian sample in order to
develop norms for this population and use the instrument extensively in
career counseling
to develop a questionnaire useful for measuring other constructs in order
to test discriminant and criterion related validity of the scale (Hinkin,
1998).
17

18. Theoretical background
Research and method
Results and conclusions
4. Conclusions – implications for
practice
The results of our study show that the brief RIASEC scale has good
psychometric properties and may be thus useful for research aims.
aims
This confirms Armstrong and colleagues’ (2008) considerations.
The scale seems particularly suitable for being used in preliminary
phases of guidance projects which have to deal with cost or time
restrictions. It can be adopted as an exercise and not as a test.
18

19. References
Armstrong , P. I. Allison , W. Rounds , J. (2008). Development and initial validation of brief public
domain RIASEC marker scales. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 287-299
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the
lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Deary, I. Mervielde, F. Ostendorf, & F. De
Fruyt (Eds.). Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg University Press: Tilburg,
The Netherlands.
Guichard, J., Huteau, M. (2003). Psicologia dell’orientamento professionale. Milano: Raffaello
Cortina.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey
questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104-121.
Holland, J. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 6, 35-45.
Holland, J. L., Powell, A., & Fritzsche, B. (1994). SDS professional user’s guide. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Lewis, P., & Rivkin, D. (1999). Development of the O*NET interest profiler. Raleigh, NC: National
Center for O*NET Development.
McDaniel, M. A., & Snell, A. F. (1999). Holland’s theory and occupational information. Journal of
Vocational Behavior: Special Issue on Holland’s Theory, 55, 74–85.
Polàček, K. (eds.) (2003). Manuale dell’adattamento italiano dell’SDS Self- Directed Search di J.L.
Holland, A.B. Powell, B.A. Fritzsche. Firenze: Organizzazioni Speciali.
Vrignaud, P., & Bernaud, J.L. (1994). Les intérets des Français soint-ils hexagonaux? 1. Élemént
pour la validation du modele des intérets de Holland (RIASEC) en France. In Question d’orientation,
1, 17-39.
19