Expected Utility of Interest Inventories in Employee Selection: Perceptions of Industrial-Organizational Psychology Experts

Amy J. Mandelke, Elizabeth L. Shoenfelt, and Reagan D. Brown

Interest inventories have long been used in conjunction with assessments of other con-structs to understand career exploration and career choice. Recently, a number of researchers have called for increased utilization of interest inventories in personnel decision making, yet this call has received limited attention in Industrial-Organizational (I-O) psychology. I-O psy-chologists with expertise in employee selection and/or EEO law were surveyed. I-O experts in-dicated interest inventories may have incremental validity over traditional selection instru-ments and that interest inventories are unlikely to result in employer liability; experts identified potential uses of interest inventories in I-O applications other than selection. However, experts perceived interest inventories to have limited expected utility for personnel selection. That these latter perceptions are inconsistent with recent meta-analytic evidence supporting inter-ests as predictors of important individual and organizational outcomes indicates the need to educate I-O psychologists on the utility of interests in employee selection.

Industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists use a variety of selection instruments to help ensure optimal fit of individuals to their jobs. Recently, researchers have called for in-creased utilization of interest inventories in personnel decision making (Chope, 2011; Nye, Su, Rounds, & Drasgow, 2012; Rounds & Su, 2014; Van Iddekinge, Roth, Putka, & Lanivich, 2011). Despite recent meta-analytic evidence that interest inventories are valid predictors of job per-formance, training performance, turnover intentions, and turnover (Nye et al., 2012; Van Id-dekinge, Roth et al., 2011), and despite some evidence that interests have incremental validity over traditional cognitive and personality measures for these same criteria (Van Iddekinge, Putka, & Campbell, 2011), interest inventories have received limited attention in I-O psychology for selection purposes (Nye et al., 2012; Van Iddekinge, Putka et al., 2011; Van Iddekinge, Roth et al., 2011).3 Our study assessed perceptions of I-O psychologists with expertise in employee selection of the utility of standardized interest inventories in employee selection. Our results make a case for increased use of interest inventories in selection contexts.

Interest inventories have long been used in conjunction with assessments measuring other constructs (e.g., aptitude, abilities, motivation, values, and personality) to understand ca-reer exploration and career choice (e.g., Betz & Borgen, 2000; Cole & Hanson, 1974). It is theo-rized that a combination of constructs enables a more comprehensive understanding of an indi-vidual that can then be used to better predict desirable outcomes (e.g., job performance, reten-tion, etc.; Betz & Borgen, 2000; Cates, 1999). Because, relative to other predictors, interest in-ventories have received little attention in I-O psychology, our first objective was to assess gen-eral awareness and knowledge of interest inventories among I-O psychologists.

Rationale for Utilizing Interest Inventories in Selection

Numerous linkages between vocational interests and various outcomes have been sup-ported in fields outside of I-O (e.g., career counseling, vocational behavior; Ehrhart & Makran-sky, 2007; Harrington, 2006; Harrington & Long, 2013; Mount & Muchinsky, 1978). Predictive relationships, such as interest inventories with academic performance (Mikulak, 2012; Nye et al., 2012) and job choice (Harrington, 2006), have been empirically supported in career coun-seling. Other relationships, such as between interest inventories and job satisfaction (i.e., over-all satisfaction; satisfaction with work, pay, promotions, supervision, and coworkers) and per-son–environment fit (Ehrhart & Makransky, 2007; Mount & Muchinsky, 1978; Spokane, Meir, & Catalano, 2000), have been supported in other related fields (e.g., vocational behavior). Con-gruent employees (i.e., employees with agreement between their interests and their position occupational codes) are more satisfied than incongruent employees (Mount & Muchinsky, 1978). Vocational interests are more predictive of perceived person–vocation fit and person–job fit than is personality (Ehrhart & Makransky, 2007).

There was limited early empirical support for the use of interest inventories in I-O psy-chology (e.g., Blau, 1987). However, two recent meta-analyses indicated empirical support for interest inventories as predictors of important individual and organizational outcomes. Nye et al. (2012) found correlations across a variety of interest scales and study characteristics that range from .21 to .30 with performance, .21 to .34 with persistence, and .26 to .37 with organi-zational citizenship behavior.  Van Iddekinge, Roth et al. (2011) found correlations of .14 with performance, .26 with training performance, -.19 with turnover intentions, and -.15 with actual turnover. Other relationships have been hypothesized, including the relationships between in-terest inventories and personality assessments administered within a work context frame of reference (Hunthausen, Truxillo, Bauer, & Hammer, 2003) or interests with noncognitive con-structs such as motivation and core self-evaluations (Rounds & Su, 2014; Van Iddekinge, Roth et al., 2011).

Person–environment fit. Person–environment (PE) fit is based on the ideology of con-gruence (i.e., similarity and compatibility) between the characteristics of the person and the characteristics of his/her work environment (Mount & Muchinsky, 1978; Muchinsky & Mo-nahan, 1987). Because interests are contextualized (i.e., interest is expressed within an implied environment), vocational interests implicitly incorporate the work environment (Rounds & Su, 2014). Thus, PE fit is somewhat inherent when interests are involved (Van Iddekinge, Putka, et al., 2011; Van Iddekinge, Roth, et al., 2011).

Person–organization (PO) fit and person–job (PJ) fit are closely related and often have been studied together in selection research (e.g., Kristof-Brown, 2000; Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001; Sekiguchi, 2004; Sekiguchi & Huber, 2011). Scholars in career counseling have focused on person–vocation fit (e.g., Ehrhart & Makransky, 2007), whereas I-O psychologists have focused on PO and PJ fit (e.g., Nye et al., 2012). In meta-analytic research, PE fit (operationalized as in-terest congruence) was found to be predictive of task performance (r = .30), organizational citi-zenship behavior (r = .37), and persistence in the job (r = .30; Nye et al., 2012). Likewise, Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, and Johnson (2005) found PJ fit to be predictive of job satisfaction (r = .56), organizational commitment (r = .47), intent to quit (r = -.46), and performance (r =.20). Preentry, PJ fit correlated with organization attraction (r = .48) and the organization’s intent to hire (r = .67; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Kristof-Brown et al. found PO fit to be a significant predictor of job satisfaction (r = .44), organizational commitment (r = 51), intentions to quit (r = -.35), task performance (r = .13), and organizational citizenship behavior (r = .27).

Given both the speculation and the empirical evidence regarding the use of interest in-ventories in I-O applications (e.g., selection, placement, evaluation, development; Kwaske, 2004; Muchinsky, 1999; Van Iddekinge, Putka et al., 2011), the second objective of our study was to obtain expert opinion on whether interest inventories should be used for employee se-lection.

Administrative and Psychometric Properties of Interest Inventories

Administrative properties. There are many potential benefits to utilizing interest inven-tories for employee selection. Some administrative benefits include short administration time and cost savings (Chope, 2011). Other benefits include ease of administration, scoring, and in-terpretation (Kwaske, 2004). Many interest inventories can be administered online, and include automated scoring and reports. Because many interest inventories were designed as self-assessments, inventory items and results are easy to use and to understand.

Reliability. Interests tend to be stable and yield reliable measures with typical coeffi-cients of stability of approximately r = .80 (Harrington, 2006; Low, Yoon, Roberts, & Rounds, 2005; Swanson & Hansen, 1988; Van Iddekinge, Putka et al., 2011). These test–retest reliability coefficients exceed what typically are observed for personality measures (Low et al., 2005; Swanson & Hansen, 1988).

Validity. There is support for the predictive validity of interest inventories for a variety of important selection criteria (e.g., satisfaction, performance, and persistence; Mount & Muchinsky, 1978; Nye et al., 2012; Savickas, Taber, & Spokane, 2002; Van Iddekinge, Putka et al., 2011; Van Iddekinge, Roth et al., 2011). Some relationships between interest inventories and outcomes can be linked to bottom-line organizational outcomes (e.g., motivation, job per-formance, and retention; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Nye et al., 2012; Van Id-dekinge, Putka et al., 2011; Van Iddekinge, Roth et al., 2011), which can lead to increased prof-its. Accordingly, the overarching purpose of our study was to investigate further the use of vo-cational interests and their potential in selection.

Legal Issues

Instruments used in selection decisions are tests and are subject to all EEO laws (e.g., Ti-tle VII, ADEA, ADA, etc.). Historically, interest inventories have not been used for selection deci-sions. It would be informative to provide expert opinion on potential liability when using inter-est inventories for selection.

Fouad and Mohler (2004) found that, for a number of interest inventories, men and women differ in interests at both item and scale levels, evidence that aligns with occupational sex-role stereotyping (Albrecht, 1976). This evidence for gender group differences may lead to potential disparate impact and employer liability.

Turner, Unkefer, Cichy, Peper, and Juang (2011) found that young adults with disabilities had a distribution of interests and estimated abilities similar to young adults in the general population. However, only 31% of the disabled young adults surveyed were employed in jobs that matched their Holland code (Turner et al., 2011). This percentage may indicate misem-ployment and potential disparate impact for disabled workers in addition to their underem-ployment (e.g., disabled persons unemployment rate of 14.5% compared to nondisabled per-sons unemployment rate of 6.5%; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014).

Case law. As of 1973, there were no recorded judicial decisions involving direct chal-lenges to the use of interest testing in educational or employment settings (Fitzgerald & Fisher, 1974). A cursory review of court cases indicated that since 1973 this continues to hold true. That is, to date, the use of interest inventories has not been directly challenged in court. How-ever, it should be noted that interest inventories have been mentioned in several lawsuits as a component of test batteries in education (i.e., claims filed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; e.g., Carrie I. EX REL. Greg I. v. Department of Educ., 2012; D.C. EX REL. T.C. v. Mount Olive Township Board of Education, 2014; Dudley v. Lower Merion School District, 2011; Edie F. Ex Rel. Casey F. v. River Falls School Dist.2001) and disability benefits (i.e., claims filed under the ADA; e.g., Null v. Community Hospital Association, 2009; Shoemate v. Astrue, 2008; Sparks v. Barnhart, 2004; Thurn v. Apfel, 1998).

Considering (a) changing workforce demographics (Chope, 2011; Fouad & Spreda, 1995), (b) employment law and guidelines regarding discrimination against protected groups, and (c) mixed evidence for the use interest inventories with protected groups, a final objective of our study was to investigate the perceived legality of interest inventories used in employee selection.

We generated three hypotheses for the study.

Hypothesis 1: A majority of respondents (i.e., greater than 50%) will indicate that interest in-ventories should be used for employee selection.

Hypothesis 2: A majority of respondents will indicate that more research on interest invento-ries is warranted.

Hypothesis 3: A majority of respondents will indicate that the use of interest inventories would lead to legal liability for the employer.

Method

Participants

SI-OP members with expertise in selection and/or EEO law were recruited to participate in the survey through multiple methods (i.e., email request, mail request to SIOP members identified as selection experts, request at the SIOP conference). The overall response rate was 12.9%; 88 I-O psychologists completed the survey. Two respondents not geographically located in the US and five graduate student respondents were excluded from the analyses, providing a final sample of 81. Respondents were predominantly male (68.3%) and White (88%); the medi-an age fell within the 35 to 45 year range. Respondents were geographically diverse, collective-ly indicating 22 states as their place of business.

Instrument

      The survey instrument consisted of 20 items that assessed opinion regarding interest inventories and their utility for employee selection. Fifteen items used five-point rating scales, three items were open-ended, one item was a checklist, and one item was yes/no.

Results

Respondents rated their level of knowledge regarding vocational interest inventories. Approximately 19% reported that they had “very little” or “little” knowledge of interest inven-tories. As such, these respondents were excluded from the remaining analyses, leaving a sam-ple size of 66.

Hypothesis 1, which stated a majority of respondents would indicate that interest inven-tories should be used for employee selection, was tested by a one sample z-test for proportion and was not supported (n = 66, z = -2.58, p > .05). Only 34.8% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that interest inventories should be used as a component in employee selection decisions (M = 3.08, SD = .95).

Hypothesis 2, which stated a majority of respondents would indicate that more research on interest inventories is warranted, was tested by a one sample z-test for proportion and was supported (n = 66, z = 6.28, p < .05). Approximately 89% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that further research on interest inventories is warranted (M = 4.24, SD = .63).

Hypothesis 3, which stated a majority of respondents would indicate that the use of in-terest inventories would lead to legal liability for the employer, was tested by a one sample z-test for proportion and was not supported (n = 66, z = -5.29, p < .05). Only 18.2% of the re-spondents agreed with the statement that the use of interest inventories as a component in employee selection decisions would lead to legal liability for an employer (M = 2.67, SD = .88).

Additional Analyses

      Employee selection. A majority of participants indicated that interest inventories may have incremental validity over traditional selection procedures in personnel decisions for train-ing (56.1%), hiring (56.1%), and lateral transfer (54.5%); 39.4% indicated incremental validity for promotion decisions. Fewer than 20% of respondents expected interest inventories to have incremental validity for licensing and certification, downsizing, or demotion.

Discriminatory effect. As with the legal liability question, participants indicated that the use of interest inventories is not likely to have a discriminatory effect on legally protected groups (only 16.7% agreed or strongly agreed likely discriminatory impact, z = -5.54, p > .05, M = 2.42, SD = .95). There was a moderate correlation between agreement that the use of inter-est inventories will lead to discriminatory effects and agreement that the use of interest inven-tories will lead to legal liability (r = .52, p < .01). Across all protected classes, respondents indi-cated relatively low likelihood that the use of interest inventories would result in discrimination against a given protected group. Mean ratings ranged from unlikely for race (M = 2.46, SD = .77), national origin (M = 2.50, SD = .87), and religion (M = 2.13, SD = .77) to somewhat likely for gender (M = 2.90, SD = .79) and age (M = 2.75, SD = .95). 

Potential risks. Participants were asked to identify potential risks involved in using inter-est inventories in selection. Participants identified 77 concerns. Twenty-eight of these concerns (36.4%) dealt with psychometric issues (e.g., validity, social desirability, and faking); 20 (27.3%) with legal concerns (e.g., discrimination, adverse impact, gender or race issues); 19 (22.6%) involved how the scores would be used (e.g., criterion issues, how to interpret, selection for groups/teams); and 10 (14.3%) addressed administrative issues (e.g., perceptions of fairness, organizational buy in).

Benefits. Participants were asked to identify applications in I-O psychology for which in-terest inventories would be beneficial. Participants identified 90 potential applications. These included 50 (55.55%) involving assessment (e.g., PO fit, PJ fit, motivation, and retention); 32 ad-dressing (35.55%) developmental purposes (e.g., career planning, self-selection, matching and placement, training and development); and 16 (17.78%) related to psychometric properties (e.g., predictive and incremental validity, face validity).

Discussion

I-O psychology has given limited attention to the use of interest inventories for tradi-tional I-O activities despite meta-analytic data indicating their utility (Nye, et al. 2012; Van Id-dekinge, Roth et al., 2011). The empirical support for interest inventories in selection contexts is of little use unless I-O psychologists are aware of it. Some 19% of experts in selection and employment law indicated they had little or very little knowledge of vocational interests. How-ever, 89% of experts indicated further research on vocational interests is warranted.

Generally, study participants did not recognize the potential utility of interest invento-ries in selection. Only 34.8% of participants agreed interest inventories should be used in selec-tion. However, participants did not expect the use of interest inventories for selection to result in illegal discrimination or adverse impact for most protected groups. Participants identified several other I-O applications for which interest inventories may be utilized such as preemployment purposes (e.g., investigating job seeking behaviors, recruitment, job design and classification, realistic job previews, etc.), assessment, individual development, and organiza-tional development, as well as positive selection decisions such as placement, training, and re-structuring. Furthermore, in these positive selection contexts, experts expected interest inven-tories to have incremental validity over traditional selection instruments; however, the same did not hold true for negative selection contexts (i.e., downsizing and demotion). Our findings are consistent with Van Iddekinge, Putka et al. (2011), who found interests had incremental va-lidity over cognitive ability and personality measures for job performance, knowledge, and per-sistence criteria.

Participants indicated potential utility of interest inventories for areas such as assess-ment (e.g., employee attitudes, performance, retention), I-O and non-I-O applications (e.g., pre-employment behaviors, education, career counseling), and attaining good psychometric (i.e., validity), and administrative properties. Participants also indicated applications in educa-tion and career counseling for which interest inventories have traditionally been used and have strong empirical support.

That interests are predictive of PE fit should have value for I-O psychology. Good fit (both PJ fit and PO fit) can yield important desirable outcomes for individuals and organizations including positive attitudes and well-made decisions prior to employment (e.g., applicant at-traction and job acceptance), and attitudes and behaviors during employment (e.g., job satis-faction, performance, avoidance of withdrawal behaviors, organizational commitment, and re-tention; Ehrhart & Makransky; Kristof-Brown, et al., 2005; Nye et al., 2012). That PE fit is pre-dictive of positive individual and organizational outcomes has been attributed to its motivation-al effects (Rounds & Su, 2014); that is, individuals whose interests and abilities are congruent with their job and organization are more likely to be motivated to do well.

In conclusion, the opinion of the I-O experts suggests interest inventories may hold promise for employee selection decisions and that, most likely, utility will likely come from in-cremental validity over ability tests. Experts with knowledge of EEO law and its implications in-dicated interest inventories are unlikely to lead to employer liability for adverse impact or dis-crimination.

The results of our study indicate I-O psychologists believe interest inventories likely have an array of useful applications in I-O psychology. In fact, there is empirical evidence of the utili-ty of interest inventories for predicting performance, satisfaction, organizational citizenship be-havior, and persistence in the job (Nye et al., Van Iddekinge, Putka et al., 2011; Van Iddekinge, Roth et al., 2011). Our study documents the need to educate I-O psychologists on the utility of interest inventories for selection purposes that benefit applicants, employees, and the organiza-tion.

Notes

1 This research was partially supported with a grant from the Western Kentucky University Graduate School.

2  Amy Mandelke current affiliation: Otter Tail Power Company, Fergus Falls, MN

3  One reason for reluctance among I-O practitioners to use interest inventories in selection may be that meta-analytic findings for the predictive validity of interest inventories have not been overly promising. Hunter and Hunter (1984), in a meta-analysis of three studies of interest inventory validity, reported a mean validity of .10. More recently, Van Iddeking, Roth, Putka, and Lanivich (2011) reported a .14 corrected validity in their meta-analysis of 80 studies. Results by type of interest inventory revealed that mean validities ranged from .10 for con-struct focused scales (e.g., Self-Directed Search) to .23 for vocation-focused scales (e.g., Strong Interest Inventory).

References

Albrecht, S. L. (1976). Social class and sex-stereotyping of occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 321-328.

Betz, N. E., & Borgen, F. H. (2000). The future of career assessment: Integrating vocational in-terests with self-efficacy and personal styles. Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 329-338.

Blau, G. J. (1987). Using a person–environment fit model to predict job involvement and organi-zational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 240-257.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). Economics news release. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t06.htm

Carrie I. EX REL. Greg I. v. Department of Educ. (2012) 869 F. Supp. 2d 1225

Cates, J. A. (1999). The art of assessment in psychology: Ethics, expertise, and validity. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 631-641.

Cole, N. S. & Hanson, G. R. (1974). Impact of interest inventories on career choice (ED 095 370). Washington DC: National Institute of Education.

Chope, R. C. (2011). Reconsidering interests: The next big idea in career counseling theory re-search and practice. Journal of Career Assessment, 19, 343-352.

D.C. EX REL. T.C. v. Mount Olive Township Board of Education (2014) Civil No. 12-5592

Dudley v. Lower Merion School District (2011) Civil Action No. 10-2749

Edie F. Ex Rel. Casey F. v. River Falls School Dist. (2001) 243 F.3d 329 (7th Cir.)

Ehrhart, D. E., & Makransky, G. (2007). Testing interests and personality as predictors of per-son–location and person–job fit. Journal of Career Assessment, 15, 206-226.

Fitzgerald, L. E., & Fisher, B. J. (1974). Legal issues: Status report (ED 095 366). Washington DC: National Institute of Education.

Fouad, N. A., & Mohler, C. J. (2004). Cultural validity of Holland’s theory and the Strong Interest Inventory for five racial/ethnic groups. Journal of Career Assessment, 12, 423-439.

Fouad, N. A., & Spreda, S. L. (1995). Use of interest inventories with special populations: Women and minority groups. Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 453-468.

Harrington, T. F. (2006). A 20-year follow-up of the Harrington-O'Shea Career Decision-Making System. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 38, 198-202.

Harrington, T., & Long, J. (2013). The history of interest inventories and assessments in career counseling. The Career Development Quarterly, 61, 83-92.

Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternate predictors of job

performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.

Hunthausen, J. M., Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., & Hammer, L. B. (2003). A field study of frame-of-reference effects on personality test validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 545-551.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job perfor-mance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376-407.

Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2000). Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruiters’ percep-tions of person–job and person–organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53, 643-671. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00217.x

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and per-son–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342.

Kwaske, I. (2004). Individual assessments for personnel selection: An update on a rarely re-searched but avidly practiced practice. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Re-search, 56, 186-194.

Lauver, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2001). Distinguishing between employees’ perceptions of per-son–job and person–organization fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 454 -470. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1807

Low, D. K. S., Yoon, M., Roberts, B. W., & Rounds, J. (2005). The stability of vocational interests from early adolescence to middle adulthood: A quantitative review of longitudinal stud-ies. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 713-737.

Mikulak, A. (2012). Employee interests predict how they will perform on the job. Association for Psychological Sciences Observer, 25(7), 7.

Mount, M. K., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1978). Person–environment congruence and employee job satisfaction: A test of Holland's theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 13, 84-100.

Muchinsky, P. M. (1999). Applications of Holland's theory in industrial and organizational set-tings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 127-135.

Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person–environment congruence? Supple-mentary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268-277. DOI: 10.1016/0001-8791(87)90043-1

Null v. Community Hospital Association (2009) No. CIV-08-297-F

Nye, C. D., Su, R., Rounds, J., & Drasgow, F. (2012). Vocational interests and performance: A quantitative summary of over 60 years of research. Perspectives on Psychological Sci-ence, 7, 384-403.

Rounds, J., & Su, R. (2014). The nature and power of interests. Current Directions in Psychologi-cal Science, 23, 98-103. DOI: 10.1177/0963721414522812.

Savickas, M. L., Taber, B. J., & Spokane, A. R. (2002). Convergent and discriminant validity of five interest inventories. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 139-184.

Sekiguchi, T. (2004). Person–organization fit and person–job fit in employee selection: A review of the literature. Osaka Keidai Ronshu, 54, 179-196.

Sekiguchi, T., & Huber, V. L. (2011). The use of person–organization fit and person–job fit in-formation in making selection decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116, 203-216. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.04.001

Shoemate v. Astrue (2008) No. 8: 07-cv-152-T-TBM

Sparks v. Barnhart (2004) 334 F. Supp. 2d 1141

Spokane, A. R., Meir, E. I., & Catalano, M. (2000). Person–environment congruence and Hol-land's theory: A review and reconsideration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 137-187.

Swanson, J. L., & Hansen, J. I. C. (1988). Stability of vocational interests over 4-year, 8-year, and 12-year intervals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33, 185-202.

Thurn v. Apfel (1998) 994 F. Supp. 1156

Turner, S., Unkefer, L. C., Cichy, B. E., Peper, C., & Juang, J. P. (2011). Career interests and self-estimated abilities of young adults with disabilities. Journal of Career Assessment, 19, 183-196.

Van Iddekinge, C. H., Roth, P. L., Putka, D. J., & Lanivich, S. E. (2011). Are you interested? A me-ta-analysis of relations between vocational interests and employee performance and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1167-1194. doi.org/10.1037/a0024343

Van Iddekinge, C. H., Putka, D. J., & Campbell, J. P (2011). Reconsidering vocational interests

for personnel selection: The validity of an interest-based selection test in relation to job knowledge, job performance, and continuance intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 13-33. doi.org/10.1037/a0021193