International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-024-09705-3

Career indecision profile‑short version: validity evidence

Andreia Sofia Barreiro Domingues1 · José Manuel Tomás da Silva1,2 ·

Maria Paula Barbas de Albuquerque Paixão1,3 ·
Rute Marlene Fernandes da Silva David1

Received: 1 October 2023 / Accepted: 10 February 2024

© The Author(s) 2024

Abstract
The Career Indecision Profile-65 items (CIP-65) is an instrument with four empiri-
cally validated dimensions of career indecision: Neuroticism/Negative Affect
(NNA), Choice/Commitment Anxiety (CCA), Lack of Readiness (LR), and Inter-
personal Conflicts (IC). The aim of this study is to adapt and validate the CIP-65
for the Portuguese population. On the basis of a sample of students (n = 442), the
results demonstrate the presence of the four theoretically proposed factors. Thus,
this study evidence suggests that the CIP-65 is a measure of career indecision with
cross-cultural validity, and it can be utilized in the assessment of difficulties in the
decision-making of young Portuguese people.

Keywords Career indecision · Vocational guidance · Exploratory factor analysis

Résumé
Le Career Indecision Profile-65 items (CIP-65) est un instrument comportant quatre
dimensions empiriquement validées de l’indécision professionnelle : Névrosisme/
Affect Négatif (NNA), Anxiété de Choix/Engagement (CCA), Manque de Prépa-
ration (LR) et Conflits Interpersonnels (IC). L’objectif de cette étude est d’adapter

* Andreia Sofia Barreiro Domingues

2015244614@student.uc.pt
José Manuel Tomás da Silva
jtsilva@fpce.uc.pt
Maria Paula Barbas de Albuquerque Paixão
mppaixao@fpce.uc.pt
Rute Marlene Fernandes da Silva David
rute.david@fpce.uc.pt
1
Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Coimbra, Rua do Colégio Novo,
3000‑115 Coimbra, Portugal
2
University of Coimbra, Center for Social Studies, Coimbra, Portugal
3
University of Coimbra, Center for Research in Neuropsychology and Cognitive-Behavioral
Intervention, Coimbra, Portugal

Vol.:(0123456789)
 International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

et de valider le CIP-65 pour la population portugaise. Sur la base d’un échantil-

lon d’étudiants (n = 442), les résultats démontrent la présence des quatre facteurs
théoriquement proposés. Ainsi, cette étude suggère que le CIP-65 est une mesure de
l’indécision professionnelle avec une validité transculturelle et peut être utilisé dans
l’évaluation des difficultés de prise de décision des jeunes Portugais.

Zusammenfassung
Das Career Indecision Profile-65 Items (CIP-65) ist ein Instrument mit vier empirisch
validierten Dimensionen der Berufsunentschlossenheit: Neurotizismus/Negative Af-
fekte (NNA), Wahl-/Verpflichtungsangst (CCA), Mangel an Bereitschaft (LR) und
zwischenmenschliche Konflikte (IC). Ziel dieser Studie ist es, das CIP-65 für die
portugiesische Bevölkerung anzupassen und zu validieren. Basierend auf einer Stich-
probe von Studierenden (n = 442) zeigen die Ergebnisse das Vorhandensein der vier
theoretisch vorgeschlagenen Faktoren. Diese Studie legt somit nahe, dass das CIP-65
ein Maß für Berufsunentschlossenheit mit interkultureller Validität ist und zur Be-
wertung von Entscheidungsproblemen junger Portugiesen verwendet werden kann.

Resumen
El Career Indecision Profile-65 items (CIP-65) es un instrumento con cuatro dimen-
siones empíricamente validadas de indecisión profesional: Neuroticismo/Afecto
Negativo (NNA), Ansiedad por la Elección/Compromiso (CCA), Falta de Prepar-
ación (LR) y Conflictos Interpersonales (IC). El objetivo de este estudio es adaptar y
validar el CIP-65 para la población portuguesa. Basado en una muestra de estudiantes
(n = 442), los resultados demuestran la presencia de los cuatro factores teóricamente
propuestos. Por lo tanto, este estudio sugiere que el CIP-65 es una medida de inde-
cisión profesional con validez transcultural y puede ser utilizado en la evaluación de
las dificultades en la toma de decisiones de los jóvenes portugueses

Research on career indecision has been carried out by vocational psychologists for
over 70 years (Shimizu, 2018). Much of this effort is related to two main objectives:
the construction of psychometrically adequate measures to assess the construct (e.g.,
Brown & Rector, 2008; Brown & Ryan Krane, 2000; Kelly & Lee, 2002; Slaney,
1988) and, more generically speaking, the broader understanding of the processes
involved in making career decisions to effectively intervene in their resolution and/
or in the prevention of future problems (Brown & Ryan Krane, 2000).
Career indecision has been defined as an individual’s inability to select or com-
mit to a course of action with a view to their preparation and entry into a given
profession (e.g., Vale & Silva, 2019; Xu & Bhang, 2019). According to some lines
of research, indecision can be seen as a deviation from the normative developmen-
tal trajectory (Xu, 2020b) as well as an obstacle (Xu & Bhang, 2018) to adaptive
career development. However, contemporary definitions also equate career indeci-
sion to the result of vocational exploration in the course of development, emphasiz-
ing its normative role (Santos, 2000). In this case, vocational indecision appears to
be a state of adaptive uncertainty (Krieshok et.al., 2009) and an expected hesitation
International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

in the normative process of career development (Savickas, 2011), which even pro-
vides an opening to alternative career paths (Krumboltz, 2009) and a buffer against
premature behaviors of committing to career choices without an informed process
of exploring promising vocational alternatives. To sum up, the current perspective
on career indecision tends to consider it to be both a behavioral inhibition rooted in
personality dispositions (chronic or generalized indecision) and a normative devel-
opmental process, in other words. A moratorium that individuals use to consider
the alternatives open to them and the future course of action (simple indecision).
Both conceptualizations have merit and are complementary rather than antagonistic,
which is why it is considered a complex and multidimensional phenomenon, and the
factors underlying it have been studied.
One of the most active fields of research in this domain aims to identify and con-
struct a robust and comprehensive psychometric model of the factors inherent to the
difficulties that arise in making career decisions. Brown and Rector (2008) carried
out meta-analytical research with several correlation matrices extracted from inde-
pendent studies that directly addressed this issue. The results suggested the pres-
ence of four main latent sources associated with difficulties surrounding decision-
making: (1) indecisiveness/negative affect, reflecting the presence of high levels of
anxiety, depressive affect, and neuroticism; low levels of self-esteem, psychologi-
cal resilience, and confidence in problem-solving; high external locus of control;
fear of making wrong decisions and focusing on the negative aspects of decisions;
and dependence on others in decision-making and low use of coping strategies; (2)
need for information, referring to lack of awareness about the variety of occupations
available and the difficulty in choosing an occupation from among a set of poten-
tially interesting options; (3) interpersonal barriers, or conflicts referring to the con-
flict felt with respect to different career options when important family or friends
suggest a possible vocational choice; and (4) a more complex and heterogeneous
factor characterized by the diffusion of one’s identity, a lack of clarity of self-image,
insufficient belief in one’s self-efficacy in terms of decision-making, unstable career
goals, or lack of motivation to commit to a career decision.
The results of Brown and Rector (2008), despite their logical coherence and
theoretical interest, methodologically speaking, had the disadvantage of being
based on exclusively secondary data. Thus, Brown et al. (2012) decided to empiri-
cally validate and refine the four-factor model through a new inventory consisting
of 167 items [Career Indecision Profile-167 (CIP-167)] including those that most
stood out in the instruments identified in the former meta-analysis (e.g., Hacker
et al., 2013; Zobell et al., 2019). The results from Brown et al. (2012) empirically
supported the previously established inferences and allowed them to improve the
initial measurement model. The four proposed factors were renamed to reflect the
content of the respective items more faithfully: (a) Neuroticism/Negative Affect
(NNA), (b) Choice/Commitment Anxiety (CCA), (c) Lack of Readiness (LR), and
(d) Interpersonal Conflicts (IC). NNA describes the individual’s tendency to focus
on the possibility of making wrong decisions, also referring to general indecisive-
ness and trait-type anxiety, vulnerability, and depressive affect; CCA describes the
individual’s difficulty in committing to a career decision and the lack of information
about themself and the occupational world; LR refers to the lack of goals, direction,
 International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

planning, conscientiousness, and confidence in their decision-making abilities; and,

finally, IC reflects one’s disagreement with other people in relation to the choice of
career and/or the perception that the information coming from the other individuals
is not reliable.
Subsequently, Hacker et al. (2013) developed the Career Indecision Profile-65
(CIP-65) by selecting those items (e.g., 65 in total) that are most associated with
each factor to create a shorter and more efficient measure of the four main sources
of career indecision for the purposes of research and vocational counseling. A con-
firmatory factor analysis performed by these researchers indicated that the CIP-65
has the same factor structure as the original instrument and high correlations (values
from 0.88 to 0.97) with the parallel dimensions of both versions (e.g., long versus
short) of the CIP (Hacker et al., 2013).
The current social paradigm, based on the unpredictability of the labor market
and the proliferation of new career typologies, forces the individual to constantly
adapt to rapid and successive life transitions, increasing the probability that they
will experience several episodes of indecision during their life (Kulcsár et al., 2020;
Xu, 2021). Consequently, the psychologist, regardless of their country of origin or
where they practice, to act in an effective, adjusted, and appropriate manner so as
to address the career development needs in the twenty-first century scenario of glo-
balization, will need at their disposal the valid diagnostic tools that allow for a quick
screening of those who have increased difficulties in vocational tasks related to their
vocational choice. The CIP (e.g., Hacker et al., 2013; Xu, 2020a; Xu & He, 2022;
Xu & Tracey, 2017) despite being a recent measurement procedure, gathers appro-
priate characteristics to face the demanding career assessment tasks of our time.
Thus, the main objective of this study is the adaptation and preliminary validation
of the Career Indecision Profile-65 (CIP-65) for the Portuguese population. In this
process, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) will be used to examine the structural
validity of the scores, given that this is the first study carried out in the Portuguese
cultural context. Given the lack of previous research on the CIP-65 in Portugal, the
EFA was preferred over the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) method since one
of the objectives of the study was to verify whether the number and nature of the
four factors proposed in the original measure model would also be revealed in the
structure of responses of the participants in the Portuguese sample, or whether, on
the contrary, the nature of the construct in this population would point to a number
of factors different from the original four proposed. In fact, as some studies on the
CIP-65 measure invariance indicate (e.g., Abrams et al., 2015; Zobbell et al., 2019),
there is a lack of sufficient empirical evidence to guarantee the existence of four
factors in populations other than the one used to construct the original version of
the CIP (Abrams et al., 2015, for example, identified a fifth factor in a sample of
respondents from South Korea). In this study, other aspects of the construct valid-
ity of responses were also analyzed, using a predominantly exploratory methodol-
ogy, correlating the scores of the CIP-65 scales with scores derived from several
short psychological scales measuring a mix of psychosocial variables: traits (based
on the Big Five model; e.g., Di Fabio, 2013; Feldman, 2003; Martincin & Stead,
2014; Penn & Lent, 2019; Xu, 2020a), self-esteem (e.g., Feldman, 2003; Saka et al.,
2008 ), and career adaptability (e.g., Hirschi, 2009; Nota et al., 2012; Rossier, 2015;
International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

Savickas, 2005). The decision to use very short scales is mainly justified by time
constraints (e.g., the schools where the study was carried out placed time restrictions
on data collection). Similar constraints have been frequently reported in the litera-
ture and have motivated researchers to construct shortened forms (i.e., scales with
10 items or less) to measure the variables under study (e.g., Ziegler et al., 2014).
To concurrently explore some aspects of the nomological network (e.g., construct
validity) of the indecision factors present in the CIP-65 measure model, we started
with the description of the main psychological characteristics of the CIP-65 factors
(e.g., Brown & Rector, 2008), and on the basis of this qualitative analysis, it was
possible to formulate a series of theoretical statements that empirical research should
be able to test. For this purpose, we selected some variables where we expected each
of the four factors of the CIP-65 to reveal a more salient association. The Big Five
personality traits (e.g., Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990) are particularly relevant for
this purpose. We expected to find a positive and statistically significant association
between the dimension of neuroticism (five-factor model) and the NNA and CCA
factors of the CIP-65, although the effect size of the relationship should be greater
for the former of the two mentioned traits. Conscientiousness is an important ele-
ment in defining the LR factor (e.g., Brown & Rector, 2008; Hacker et al., 2013) and
empirically one would expect a relationship between both dimensions. Regarding
the relationships of the other personality dimensions (e.g., extraversion, agreeable-
ness, openness to experience) and the CIP-65 factors, there is less certainty with
respect to making informed predictions.
Self-esteem, usually defined as “a positive or negative attitude toward a particular
object, namely the self” (Rosenberg, 1965, p. 30), is a personality variable that has
been shown to be generally related to career decision difficulties (e.g., Levin et al.,
2020; Santos et al., 2014) and, in particular, with the NNA factor (Brown & Rector,
2008), where a negative and statistically significant relationship is expected to exist
between self-esteem and this, as well as the other CIP-65 factors.
Career adaptability, usually understood as “a psychosocial construct that
denotes an individual’s resources for coping with current and anticipated tasks,
transitions, traumas in their occupational roles that, to some degree large or
small, alter their social integration” (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012, p. 662), is a par-
ticularly apt concept to clarify the career development of individuals in today’s
world characterized by abrupt changes in economic, technological, and social
environments. The four subdimensions of career adaptability (concern, control,
curiosity, and confidence) have been shown to be related to a multitude of varia-
bles, namely career-related outcomes, dispositions, and self-regulation processes
(Rossier, 2015). Conceptually, as Savickas (2021) suggests, career adaptability
dimensions are implicated in the career decision/indecision process. The Control
subdimension, for example, representing a conscientious, deliberate, organized,
and decisive orientation on the part of the individual in carrying out the required
developmental tasks, will hypothetically be associated with several factors of
decision difficulty evaluated in the CIP-65, especially with LR, but also with the
dimensions NNA and CCA. Similarly, greater confidence in approaching devel-
opmental tasks and greater concern with the imminence of these tasks should be
negatively related to LR for career decision-making. The inclusion in this study
 International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

of measures of career adaptability will also allow us to investigate the relation-

ship between both constructs, an issue that until now has rarely been addressed
in the literature.
Furthermore, we found it interesting to investigate the correlation between gen-
der and career decision-making, as the results are ambiguous: while, on the one
hand, some research indicates that, although the differences are minimal (Gati &
Saka, 2001), these seem to show that young women are more indecisive than men
(Rassin & Muris, 2005; Serling & Betz, 1990), on the other hand, other studies
suggest that there is no significant evidence in terms of gender when it comes to
career indecision (Albion & Fogarty, 2002; Kleiman & Gati, 2004; Lease, 2004;
Levin et al., 2020; Lipshits-Braziler et al., 2015). According to a practice often
observed in the career indecision literature, possible gender differences were also
verified in the four career indecision factors, although in this case, except for the
NNA factor, the literature points to the lack of different response patterns for gen-
der (Hacker et al., 2013).
To conclude, this study also seeks to respond to one of the limitations often
mentioned in studies previously carried out with the CIP, namely the need to rep-
licate the results in international samples that are culturally distinct from North
American samples (Brown et al., 2012; Zobell et al., 2019).

Method

Participants and procedure

The sample was taken using the intentional non-probability sampling method.
The research protocol was administered to students in the education system
between the 10th grade and the first cycle of university higher education. The
secondary school students came from various educational establishments in the
northern and central regions of mainland Portugal.
The questionnaire was administered to a sample of 447 participants (Portu-
guese secondary and university students). Five questionnaires were excluded
because they were incomplete. The final sample consisted of 442 subjects, aged
between 14 and 41 years (M = 16.54, SD = 2.12). The sample included 57.2% (n
= 253) female participants and 42.8% (n = 189) male participants. Most of them
were 10th or 11th graders (n = 148 and n = 145, respectively). Most respondents
had a high socioeconomic level (n = 230; 52%), attended secondary school (87%),
and for the most part, aspired to obtain an advanced academic degree (e.g., 78%
wanted to pursue master’s and/or doctorate studies). The average level of deci-
sion (6-point scale from “1 = totally undecided” to 6 = “completely decided”) of
the respondents was 4.01 (SD = 1.55), and the importance of decision (6-point
scale from 1 = “Very irrelevant” to 6 = “Very relevant”) was 4.62 (SD = 1.27).
The study was conducted in accordance with ethical principles for research with
human beings and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the university insti-
tution where the researchers are affiliated.
International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

Measures

Sociodemographic questionnaire

Participants were asked about their age, their gender, their nationality, their year of
schooling, their level of education, and the profession they intended to pursue after
completing their studies.

Career Indecision Profile‑65 items (CIP‑65)

Instrument developed by Brown et al. (2012) to assess four indecision factors:

(a) NNA (21 items; “often feel fearful and anxious”), (ii) CCA (24 items; “can’t
commit, don’t know other options”), (iii) LR [15 items; “confident I’ll achieve
goals (reversed)”], and (iv) IC (5 items; “important people disagree with plans”).
Responses to the 65 items are performed on a six-point Likert assessment scale
(where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 6 = “strongly agree”). A high score on any of the
subscales reveals greater levels of career indecision. Hacker et al. (2013) obtained
Cronbach’s α coefficients from 0.88 to 0.97 for the four subscales. The CIP-65 was
initially translated (instructions, response scale, and items) from English to Euro-
pean Portuguese adopting the good practices defined for testing and assessment
procedures in an international context (e.g., Duarte & Rossier, 2008), namely using
the method of translation and back-translation (e.g., standardized translation–back-
translation), and the final version was obtained by consensus between three bilingual
auditors with research experience in the field of career development. The order in
which items appear in the research instrument was randomly generated. Psychomet-
ric information on the Portuguese version of the CIP-65 is presented in the next sec-
tion of this study.

Big Five Inventory‑10 (BFI‑10;Rammstedt & John, 2007; Melo, 2018)

The BFI-10 is intended to assess the big five personality factors (neuroticism,
extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, and conscientiousness), with
only two items per dimension. Items are rated on a Likert-type scale (1 = “com-
pletely disagree” and 5 = “completely agree”). This instrument showed (Rammstedt
& John, 2007) an adequate temporal stability coefficient (rtt = 0.75) and predicts
almost 70% of the variance of the longer five-factor version. After carrying out pre-
liminary analyses on the sample of this study, we only retained the neuroticism (N;
α = 0.75) and extraversion (E; α = 0.65) since the subscales of agreeableness, open-
ness to experience, and conscientiousness showed inadequate values of internal con-
sistency in the present study (α = −0.18, 0.37, and 0.30, respectively).

Single‑Item Self‑Esteem Scale (SISE; Brailovskaia & Margraf, 2020; Robins et al.,
2001)

This is a self-report measure that measures self-esteem with a single item (“I have
high self-esteem”), scored from 1 (“not true about me”) to 7 (“true about me”). In
 International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

psychometric terms, the item showed adequate test–retest stability (rtt = 0.69; Rob-
ins et al., 2001). The studies carried out by Pimentel et al. (2018) revealed satisfac-
tory results of convergent validity (r = 0.55) for the Portuguese version of this single
item. In the present study, many missing values (missing = 95) were registered in
this scale. In this sense, χ2 and Student’s t-tests were performed on the observed
variables to check whether there were statistically significant differences between
the two groups (response versus non-response). The results showed that there were
no differences, so we decided to keep the variable in the study. The pairwise method
was used to calculate the correlations in which this variable was involved.

Career Adaptability Scale‑Short Version (CAAS‑SF)

Maggiori et al. (2017) developed this measure to assess career adaptability using
only 12 items divided into the four dimensions of adaptability (concern, control,
curiosity, and confidence). The original version revealed excellent internal con-
sistency values for the total scale (α = 0.90) and adequate for the factors (α values
from 0.76 to 0.83). In this study, the internal consistency in the subscales proved to
be minimally acceptable, namely α = 0.66 (concern), α = 0.59 (control), α = 0.65
(curiosity), and α = 0.68 (confidence). The total scale showed adequate values (α =
0.86).

Data analysis

The dimensionality of responses in the CIP-65 was examined through an explora-

tory factor analysis (EFA) using Factor software, version 10.4.01 64 bits (Lorenzo-
Seva & Ferrando, 2006). The factor structure of the CIP is known, and therefore, it
would be equally plausible to carry out a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the
data. The underlying logic of both techniques is the same, but given the explora-
tory nature of this study, as previously mentioned, the first approach was preferred.
Through the EFA we intended to ascertain (1) how many factors underlie the rela-
tionships between the variables (items) of the Portuguese version, deciding the num-
ber of factors on the basis of an empirical strategy (e.g., scree plot, parallel analy-
sis) and (2) which items correlate most with each factor and which factors correlate
with each other. The robust unweighted least squares (RULS) method was used to
extract the factors, and the factors were subsequently transformed using the Promin
oblique rotation method (Lorenzo-Seva, 1999). The Factor 10 software, used in
the calculations, has the advantage of offering a series of model fit quality indices
similar to those generated by typical structural equation modeling (SEM) programs.
Goodness-of-fit was assessed using the following adjustment indices: goodness
of fit (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), and non-normed fit index (NNFI). According to the methodological lit-
erature (e.g., Ferrando & Anguiano-Carrasco, 2010) GFI, CFI, and NNFI values
equal to or greater than 0.95 reveal a good fit; for the RMSEA, values below 0.05
are indicators of good fit, while values between 0.06 and 0.08 would still be admissi-
ble. Internal consistency values for the factors were also estimated using Cronbach’s
International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

α, and in this case values greater than or equal to 0.70 are seen as adequate. Prelimi-
nary analysis did not reveal anomalies in the variables’ distributions, namely with
respect to normality. Finally, several inferential tests were carried out in the valida-
tion process of the answers obtained for factors with the IBM SPSS Statistics pro-
gram (v. 27).

Results

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

The matrix of inter-item correlations of responses in the CIP-65 (the 65 × 65 matrix

will be provided by the authors if requested) was subject to an EFA carried out
by the Factor 10 software. Preliminary analyses of the factorability of the matrix
revealed a Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) index of 0.93, with the Bartlett’s test of
sphericity proving to be statistically significant (p < 0.001), indicating that factor
analysis is appropriate for the data matrix in question. A total of 13 factors initially
satisfied the Kaiser criterion (eigenvalues > 1), explaining 63.2% of the model vari-
ance. The criterion K > 1, however, overestimates the number of factors extracted
when the sample is large, and therefore, the Parallel Analysis with Optimal Imple-
mentation method (Timmerman & Lorenzo-Seva, 2011) was calculated on the basis
of 500 random correlation matrices. This method suggested the extraction of four
factors, a result consistent with the number of factors theoretically expected and
empirically obtained by the authors of the CIP-65 (Hacker et al., 2013). The infor-
mation from the scree plot is congruent with the decision to retain four dimensions.
The initial factor matrix was subsequently transformed by way of a Promin rota-
tion, and to interpret the significance of each factor, only factor loadings greater than
0.35 (p < 0.001) were considered. In the study of the pattern of item–factor load-
ings, both matrices (e.g., pattern and structure) generated in the analysis were con-
sidered (Table 1 presents both loadings, but in the discussion section, only the pat-
tern loadings will be discussed). The four factors explained 44% of the initial total
variance, respectively, 23.6%, 8.9%, 6.8%, and 4.5% for each factor.
In general, items tend to have factor loadings on predicted factors. According to
the extraction order, the factors corresponded to the following theoretical dimen-
sions: CCA, IC, NNA, and LR. A total of 22 items saturated on the NNA factor.
The factor loadings (pattern coefficients) ranged between 0.36 and 0.86 (median =
0.58), and one of the items (NNA2) did not significantly load the target factor. Two
items, theoretically belonging to other factors (LR2 and LR7), correlated strongly in
this dimension. As for the CCA factor, 22 items evidenced loadings between 0.38
and 0.84 (median = 0.61) with the first factor. Item CCA22 revealed an inconsist-
ent (pattern) relationship with this factor. The LR factor has 14 items with loadings
ranging from 0.38 to 0.70 (median = 0.52) on the fourth factor. However, two items
(LR2 and LR8) that, conceptually, are indicators of this latent dimension showed
correlations below 0.35 with it. Finally, and in accordance with the theoretical
model, the IC factor showed loadings between 0.52 and 0.75 (median = 0.62) with
the second factor.
 International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

Table 1  Pattern (P), structure (S) loadings, and inter-factors correlation matrix (N = 422)
I II III IV
P S P S P S P S

NNA1 −0.01 0.17 0.08 0.13 0.39 0.37 −0.14 −0.00

NNA2 −0.07 0.06 0.27 0.29 0.11 0.16 0.05 0.13
NNA3 −0.06 0.22 0.15 0.27 0.50 0.53 0.08 0.25
NNA4 −0.09 0.23 0.09 0.22 0.60 0.60 0.05 0.24
NNA5 −0.04 0.34 −0.03 0.13 0.86 0.80 −0.15 0.11
NNA6 0.07 0.42 −0.15 0.04 0.85 0.83 −0.06 0.18
NNA7 0.21 0.40 0.04 0.16 0.41 0.49 −0.11 0.06
NNA8 −0.07 0.31 0.11 0.28 0.71 0.74 0.14 0.37
NNA9 0.30 0.50 0.06 0.21 0.41 0.54 −0.08 0.10
NNA10 0.04 0.23 0.03 0.14 0.36 0.41 0.09 0.21
NNA11 −0.01 0.36 0.01 0.18 0.77 0.77 0.02 0.25
NNA12 −0.11 0.26 0.10 0.25 0.69 0.70 0.12 0.33
NNA13 0.03 0.32 −0.06 0.09 0.65 0.65 −0.01 0.17
NNA14 0.10 0.36 −0.03 0.15 0.49 0.60 0.21 0.36
NNA15 −0.09 0.23 0.11 0.24 0.59 0.60 0.08 0.27
NNA16 0.18 0.44 0.06 0.23 0.51 0.63 0.06 0.25
NNA17 0.01 0.26 −0.12 −0.03 0.69 0.57 −0.32 −0.13
NNA18 0.30 0.51 0.04 0.20 0.44 0.59 −0.02 0.16
NNA19 0.08 0.28 −0.23 −0.10 0.56 0.53 −0.05 0.08
NNA20 0.02 0.30 0.06 0.17 0.58 0.57 −0.12 0.08
NNA21 −0.17 0.21 −0.06 0.09 0.82 0.73 −0.00 0.21
CCA1 0.38 0.47 0.23 0.34 0.06 0.30 0.04 0.16
CCA2 0.45 0.41 0.11 0.18 −0.12 0.10 −0.08 −0.02
CCA3 0.55 0.53 0.13 0.26 −0.18 0.17 0.19 0.25
CCA4 0.51 0.57 0.22 0.36 −0.02 0.40 0.13 0.24
CCA5 0.62 0.63 0.12 0.27 −0.08 0.28 0.12 0.21
CCA6 0.76 0.73 0.10 0.25 −0.08 0.29 −0.04 0.07
CCA7 0.70 0.66 −0.12 0.04 −0.00 0.29 −0.03 0.05
CCA8 0.52 0.68 0.02 0.21 0.33 0.58 −0.01 0.17
CCA9 0.79 0.72 −0.09 0.06 −0.06 0.26 −0.10 −0.02
CCA10 0.66 0.65 0.05 0.22 −0.11 0.27 0.19 0.27
CCA11 0.65 0.67 −0.07 0.10 0.09 0.37 −0.03 0.08
CCA12 0.55 0.65 0.11 0.31 0.07 0.43 0.24 0.37
CCA13 0.67 0.72 0.05 0.24 0.04 0.39 0.08 0.20
CCA14 0.70 0.64 −0.15 −0.01 −0.02 0.24 −0.14 −0.07
CCA15 0.56 0.66 −0.02 0.15 0.24 0.48 −0.07 0.08
CCA16 0.59 0.64 −0.07 0.10 0.15 0.41 −0.01 0.11
CCA17 0.57 0.59 0.09 0.21 0.04 0.30 −0.12 −0.00
CCA18 0.84 0.77 −0.11 0.08 −0.11 0.28 0.07 0.14
CCA19 0.59 0.67 −0.01 0.17 0.18 0.46 0.02 0.16
CCA20 0.62 0.58 0.04 0.15 −0.06 0.20 −0.16 −0.07
International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

Table 1  (continued)
I II III IV
P S P S P S P S

CCA21 0.71 0.68 0.14 0.28 −0.12 0.24 −0.04 0.06

CCA22 0.26 0.55 0.14 0.18 −0.12 0.73 −0.04 0.35
CCA23 0.46 0.46 −0.16 −0.07 0.16 0.27 −0.22 −0.14
LR1 0.02 0.12 −0.07 0.04 0.12 0.23 0.38 0.40
LR2 −0.19 0.09 −0.10 0.02 0.60 0.53 0.15 0.28
LR3 0.04 0.02 −0.15 −0.07 −0.14 0.00 0.52 0.45
LR4 0.04 −0.01 −0.15 −0.07 −0.21 −0.05 0.59 0.50
LR5 0.01 0.05 −0.10 0.02 −0.05 0.12 0.62 0.58
LR6 0.13 0.32 0.03 0.20 0.25 0.44 0.40 0.51
LR7 −0.19 0.06 0.04 0.16 0.40 0.43 0.36 0.47
LR8 0.05 −0.00 −0.12 −0.08 −0.15 −0.06 0.32 0.26
LR9 −0.03 0.20 −0.03 0.15 0.33 0.46 0.52 0.61
LR10 −0.04 0.08 −0.07 0.07 0.09 0.24 0.59 0.60
LR11 0.11 0.26 0.07 0.23 0.15 0.36 0.48 0.56
LR12 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.17 −0.21 0.05 0.67 0.63
LR13 0.03 0.25 0.01 0.19 0.32 0.48 0.50 0.59
LR14 −0.06 −0.05 −0.01 0.06 −0.17 −0.02 0.61 0.55
LR15 0.02 0.00 −0.05 0.05 −0.24 −0.03 0.70 0.62
LR16 −0.17 0.01 0.18 0.27 0.17 0.26 0.44 0.50
IC1 −0.02 0.10 0.63 0.61 −0.03 0.08 −0.07 0.05
IC2 0.04 0.20 0.75 0.75 −0.04 0.15 0.00 0.15
IC3 0.02 0.12 0.52 0.50 −0.02 0.08 −0.10 0.01
IC4 0.03 0.17 0.62 0.63 −0.03 0.14 0.02 0.14
IC5 0.07 0.22 0.60 0.62 0.00 0.19 0.06 0.19
I II III IV

I 1
II 0.24 1
III 0.48 0.23 1
IV 0.15 0.21 0.31 1

Notes. Factor loadings greater than 0.30 are in bold. NNA = Neuroticism/Negative Affectivity, CC =
Choice Anxiety/Commitment, LR = Lack of Readiness, IC = Interpersonal Conflicts

The factors present weak to moderate inter-correlations, ranging from 0.15

(LR and CCA) to 0.48 (NNA and CCA), with a median for the set of 0.24. The
internal consistency (estimated by Cronbach’s α coefficient) for the four factors
was mostly very good: 0.92 (NNA), 0.94 (CCA), 0.84 (LR), and 0.77 (IC).
Further analyses pointed that the overall fit of the data to the exploratory
factorial model was very good for all the goodness-of-fit indices recommended
in the literature (Table 2). Table 2 also presents, for illustrative purposes only,
 International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

Table 2  Comparison of χ2 gl GFI CFI NNFI RMSEA

goodness-of-fit indices on two
samples: USA versus Portugal Hacker et al. 6495.63 2009 – 0.95 0.95 0.074
(2013) (N
= 488)
CFA
Present study 3803.75* 1826 0.98 0.96 0.96 0.050
(N = 442)
EFA

GFI goodness of fit index, CFI comparative fit index, NNFI non-
normed fit index, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation
*
Robust mean-scaled χ2

the values obtained for the same indices and reported in the CFA performed by
Hacker et al. (2013). The values obtained in this study are generally very good.

Validity estimates of scores derived from CIP‑65 factors

Table 3 presents the Pearson coefficients among the four factors of the CIP-65,
and the indicators of neuroticism and extraversion (BFI-10), the single item of
self-esteem, and the scores derived from the responses in the CAAS-SF (concern,
control, curiosity, confidence, and total CAAS). Table 3 also provides information
regarding the internal consistency of these measures (except for the self-esteem
item). The values obtained in the short psychological scales are acceptable in the
case of neuroticism (α = 0.75) and total CAAS (α = 0.84) and mediocre in the
remaining dimensions (α from 0.59 to 0.68; median = 0.65).

BFI‑10 The NNA factor correlated with neuroticism (r = 0.60, r2 = 0.36, p < 0.01)
and extraversion (r = −0.16, r2 = 0.03, p < 0.05). The CCA factor showed weak cor-
relations with neuroticism (r = 0.25, r2 = 0.06, p < 0.01) and extraversion (r = −0.10,
r2 = 0.01, p < 0.05). The LR factor correlated weakly with neuroticism (r = 0.20, r2
= 0.04, p < 0.05) and did not correlate with extraversion (r = −0.08, p > 0.05). The
IC factor did not show correlations with the two mentioned BFI-10 dimensions: r =
−0.05, p > 0.05 (neuroticism) and r = −0.01, p > 0.05 (extraversion).

Single self‑esteem item Factors NNA (r = −0.63, p < 0.01), CCA (r = −0.23, p <
0.01) and LR (r = −0.37, p < 0.01) showed negative and significant correlations with
the self-esteem (0.05 ≤ r2 ≤ 0.40). The IC factor is not associated with self-esteem
(r = 0.04, p > 0.05).

CAAS‑SF Negative and significant correlations were observed among the CIP-65 fac-
tors (except for the IC factor) and the CAAS-SF dimensions. Table 3 reveals that the
LR factor is the one with the highest communality with the CAAS-SF scales (median
r = −0.50); then, ex aequo, the NNA and CCA factors (median r = −0.19 for both)
appear. The NNA factor correlated more strongly with the control dimension (r =
−0.43, r2 = 0.18, p < 0.01), the CCA factor showed moderate correlations with the
Table 3  Pearson intercorrelation matrix, means, standard deviations, and internal consistency estimates
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

(1) NNA
(2) CCA​ 0.54
(3) LR 0.36 0.20
(4) IC 0.20 0.24 0.11
(5) N 0.60 0.25 0.20 −0.05
(6) E −0.16 −0.10 −0.08 −0.01 −0.14
(7) Self-esteem −0.63 −0.23 −0.37 0.04 −0.51 0.28
(8) Concern −0.19 −0.25 −0.52 −0.03 −0.15 0.15 0.27
International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

(9) Control −0.43 −0.25 −0.48 −0.06 −0.29 0.15 0.45 0.55
(10) Curiosity −0.14 −0.02 −0.46 0.03 −0.10 0.05 0.12 0.59 0.51
(11) Confidence −0.19 −0.13 −0.54 −0.04 −0.11 0.09 0.19 0.62 0.51 0.64
(12) CAAS total −0.29 −0.20 −0.61 −0.04 −0.20 0.14 0.32 0.85 0.79 0.83 0.83
(13) Gender 0.33 0.14 0.06 −0.18 0.43 −0.12 −0.40 0.01 −0.09 0.01 0.05 −0.01

N = 442; r ≥ |0.139|, p < 0.05; r ≥ |0.182|, p < 0.01; r ≥ |0.231|, p < 0.001 (two-tailed critical values)
NNA Neuroticism/Negative Affectivity, CCA​Choice Commitment/Anxiety, LR Lack of Readiness, IC Interpersonal Conflicts, CAAS Career Adapt-Abilities Scale. Gender:
1 male, 2 female
 International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

concern and control dimensions (both r = −0.25, r2 = 0.06, p < 0.01). The LR factor
strongly correlates (e.g., large effect sizes) with the four dimensions of the CPI-65 SF
(−0.46 ≤ r ≤ 0.54).

Gender The NNA (r = 0.33, r2 = 0.11, p < 0.01) and CCA (r = 0.14, r2 = 0.02, p <
0.01) showed positive correlations with gender, revealing that female students scored
higher than male students in these dimensions of the CPI-65. In the CI factor, a nega-
tive correlation was registered (r = −0.18, r2 = 0.03, p < 0.01), meaning that male
students have greater difficulties in this domain than female students. In any case,
the effects of gender, in the mentioned dimensions, are small (except for the moder-
ate effect found with the NNA). Finally, the LR dimension was not correlated with
gender (r = 0.06, p > 0.05).

Discussion

The EFA results demonstrated that the scores obtained with the Portuguese version
of the CIP-65 have adequate psychometric qualities and that they are organized into
the four predicted latent factors (NNA, CCA, LR, and CI). A small number of items
revealed, however, an unsuitable psychometric behavior, for example, showing cor-
relations in more than one factor or not correlating in the target factor, but, in gen-
eral, the exploratory factorial model fit the data well (e.g., CFI = 0.96 and RMSEA
= 0.05). Cronbach’s α coefficients for the four factors vary from 0.77 (IC) to 0.94
(CCA), consequently the values obtained in this study were slightly lower than those
of the initial North American study (e.g., Hacker et al., 2013) and others (Xu &
Tracey, 2017; Zobell et al., 2019). However, these results are very similar to interna-
tional studies that used the short version of the CIP (e.g., Abrams et al., 2013, 2015;
Carr et al., 2014).
Although the items have lower factor loadings and item-total correlations than
the original study (Hacker et al., 2013), these are generally adequate and within the
recommended values in the psychometric literature. It was found that some items
had complex factor loadings, which were not entirely unexpected considering the
observed inter-factor correlations. For example, the correlation between NNA and
CCA can be explained because anxiety (neuroticism; e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992)
is an important facet of both factors. So, it is reasonable that individuals who have
high levels of neuroticism, or emotional instability, with a tendency to have a nega-
tive view of situations and their own actions, may be more likely to approach their
decisions with higher levels of anxiety (Penn & Lent, 2019). Regarding the moder-
ate correlation established between the NNA and LR factors, it can be explained by
the negative and possibly erroneous perception that the individual has about their
own ability to make a career decision, which, in this way, could lead to a lack of
planning and direction in terms of vocational goals.
The concurrent validity of the CIP-65 scores was examined with variables exter-
nal to the model, and Pearson’s correlations between the CIP-65 factors and the N
and E (Big Five) traits, self-esteem, and career adaptability were calculated. The
three dimensions missing from the Big Five Model (Openness, Conscientiousness,
International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

and Agreeableness) were not used due to the low values of internal consistency of
the measures obtained in the present sample.
The results of CIP-65 with BFI-10 are consistent with the literature (e.g., Betz
& Serling, 1993; Brown et al., 2012; Di Fabio et al., 2013; Feldman, 2003; Phang
et al., 2020; Priyashantha et al., 2022; Xu, 2020a). Individuals who have a high level
of neuroticism tend to have more difficulties in decision-making. These results were
replicated in investigations that used other measures of career indecision, namely
with the CDDQ (Gati et al., 1996), finding positive correlations between career dif-
ficulties and neuroticism (Xu, 2020a). The NNA factor is positively correlated with
neuroticism and negatively with extraversion. Previously, Chartrand et al. (1993)
demonstrated that neuroticism is a good predictor of antecedents of career indeci-
sion. Individuals with a higher NNA may have chronic decision-making problems
because they focus excessively on the negative aspects of each option, ending up
disregarding the remaining options available to them. In this way, emotional insta-
bility can raise barriers in the decision-making process, at the same time increasing
the perceived stress and difficulties in solving the decision problem. The stress asso-
ciated with decision-making can even lead to the adoption of impulsive strategies,
such as premature and unjustified exclusion from an available vocational option, and
excessive reliance on the opinions of others, increasing the individual’s dependence
on others to make their decisions (Brown et al., 2012). However, extroverts will have
less difficulty in making career decisions since they tend to focus on the positive
aspects of career options and are therefore more persevering in exploring several
satisfactory career options. We also found that the CCA factor correlated positively
with neuroticism. It is known that anxiety is a facet of neuroticism; thus, individu-
als with high levels of CCA feel an unreasonable fear of eliminating certain valid
options and later regretting having made this decision (Brown et al., 2012). There-
fore, if people with high neuroticism perceive themselves as having low self-efficacy
in career decision-making and tend to focus on the negative aspects of the results of
their actions, the anxiety of these individuals may lead them to avoid commitment to
a decision where they deem themselves to be ineffective.
Results in this study support the idea that career indecision negatively correlates
with self-esteem (e.g., Feldman, 2003; Saka et al., 2008). Individuals with low self-
esteem have, at the same time, low self-efficacy beliefs and a tendency to opt for
less demanding careers. Therefore, subjects with low self-esteem are more likely to
express more difficulties in making career decisions (Santos et al., 2014).
Considering the relationships between the CIP-65 and the CAAS-SF, we can sug-
gest that individuals with low career adaptability are more likely to have difficul-
ties in decision-making; these data are congruent with the available literature (e.g.,
Hirschi et al., 2015; Savickas, 2005). The controllability dimension is the one that
presents the greatest correlation with the CIP-65. In fact, as Savickas (2005) points
out, a greater perception of career control involves a growing capacity for self-reg-
ulation through decision-making and the acceptance of personal responsibility for
one’s own future. Our results also showed that LR and NNA factors are strongly
associated with adaptability. The relationship between LR and adaptability can be
explained if we admit that an individual with a high score on this factor is character-
ized by a lack of career planning, clear goals, and low self-efficacy beliefs. Hence,
 International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

this person tends to be less concerned with their vocational future and less interested
in exploring different professional environments, as they believe they do not have
sufficient skills to make a positive decision about their career. This self-limitation
reduces the amount of information collected and makes decision-making difficult
(Note et al., 2012). We also found that individuals with higher NNA scores have a
lower perception of career control. Apparently, these people tend to have an exter-
nal locus of control and depend on others to make decisions, limiting their capacity
for self-regulation, personal responsibility, and concern for their vocational future.
Individuals with high CCA scores revealed a lower level of confidence, once again
suggesting that they feel anxious about having to select and commit to a choice,
something they believe they are unable to do successfully. In general, these results
contribute to a better understanding of the nomological network of both constructs,
but future studies should seek to determine the generalizability of the results found
and the underlying processes.
As for the relationship between gender and difficulties in making career deci-
sions, significant differences were found. Overall, women have difficulties in more
dimensions of the CIP-65 than men, a result consistent with international studies
(e.g., Rassin & Muris, 2005; Serling & Betz, 1990). Specifically, women scored
higher than men in the NNA and CCA factor, while men scored higher than women
on the IC factor. Hacker et al. (2013) also found this type of result in their work.
Females are known to have the trait of neuroticism more frequently than males (e.g.,
Costa & McCrae, 1992), and therefore, sex differences in the NNA are plausible.
The results obtained in the CCA do not contradict previous studies and show that
females are more susceptible to anxiety-related cognitions, and it is conceivable that
this vulnerability is expressed in higher levels of anxiety in career decision (e.g.,
Rassin & Muris, 2005). In this study, males had higher scores in the IC factor. Some
previous studies have revealed that males report more decision difficulties due to
external conflicts (Gati & Saka, 2001; Gati et al., 2013; Hijazi et al., 2004; Levin
et al., 2020). If, as the literature shows, parental figures have higher educational
aspirations for males and expect them to be more career oriented, then males are
subjected to greater pressure to make a vocational choice (Gati & Saka, 2001). This
hypothesis needs to be duly examined in future research.

Limitations and future studies

The present study has some limitations that must be considered when interpreting
the scope of the results achieved. The first limitation was that, when the research
protocols were administered to young people in the 10th grade, they had difficulty
interpreting item 16 of the scale because they did not know what the word “dili-
gence” meant. We believe that the word “commitment” or “dedication” would help
to overcome this difficulty. The second limitation concerns the instruments that were
used to analyze concurrent validity hypothesis. Given the inadequate internal con-
sistency verified in the dimension’s openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness,
which comprise the BFI-10, we were only able to perform analyses with respect to
the remaining two factors (neuroticism and extraversion), which made it impossible
International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

to verify some hypotheses established a priori. To compensate for this, in subsequent

studies it would be relevant to use more psychometrically robust measures of the
five-factor model (FFM). Third, we emphasize that test–retest was not carried out
to assess the temporal stability of the Single-Item Self-Esteem Scale, so its results
should be interpreted and generalized with special care. Fourth, the Interpersonal
Conflicts (IC) subscale of the CIP-65 did not show significant correlations with the
measures we used, probably due to the omission of variables related to this domain,
such as family variables (e.g., attachment and separation-individuation). Thus, we
suggest that, in future research, the influence of family functioning should be ana-
lyzed in terms of the CIP-65 factors, in particular, the IC factor. Finally, future stud-
ies would be justified in their adoption a confirmatory analytical strategy employing
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the CIP-65 measurement model.

Conclusion

This study suggests that the CIP-65 measurement model proposed by Hacker et al.
(2013) with four factors (Neuroticism/Negative Affect, Choice/Commitment Anxi-
ety, Lack of Readiness, and Interpersonal Conflicts) is a plausible representation
of the data collected in the sample of Portuguese secondary and university stu-
dents. This result also suggests that the CIP-65 factors have cross-cultural valid-
ity, although methodologically more demanding studies still need to be carried out.
Despite the fact that the measures of different constructs of the factors evaluated
in the CIP-65 model have shown some psychometric weaknesses (e.g., only short
scales were used), it was worthwhile to verify that the results obtained are consist-
ent with the hypotheses derived from the literature: the NNA factor is more related
to personality-related variables; the LR factor is most associated with career adapt-
ability variables; and CCA is essentially a “bandwidth” factor that relates to both
personality and career adaptability variables. The IC factor did not show a salient
association with the variables included in the study. Therefore, this study shows that
several variables contribute to understanding the phenomenon of vocational indeci-
sion and that individual differences seem to have a significant impact on the career
decision process.
This research, more pragmatically, makes it possible to alter the void of valid
and efficient instruments in Portugal for the diagnosis and intervention in career
(in)decision problems. Empirical evidence suggests that the CIP-65 has the poten-
tial both to increase available knowledge about the career decision process and to
assess and design psychological interventions aimed at individuals’ vocational dif-
ficulties. Despite being a recent measure, it constitutes a tool with adequate psy-
chometric properties and appears to be useful for discriminating different facets of
vocational indecision. The assessment of career decision difficulties is crucial in
vocational counseling since different difficulties require equally different interven-
tion strategies (Brown & Rector, 2008). Thus, an individual with a high score on the
NNA factor needs an intervention that focuses on improving self-esteem and explor-
ing and reconsidering prematurely excluded options. However, if the young person
scores highly on the LR factor, the focus of the intervention is redirected toward
 International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

the development of self-efficacy beliefs and the acquisition of skills in planning and
directing vocational goals. The adaptation of this instrument to the Portuguese lan-
guage can contribute to the further knowledge on career indecision in the Portu-
guese population and paves the way for the future development of specific strategies
that seek to reduce the difficulties in decision-making of Portuguese adolescents and
young adults.
Funding Open access funding provided by FCT|FCCN (b-on).

Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permis-
sion directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.

References
Abrams, M. D., Lee, I. H., Brown, S. D., & Carr, A. (2015). The career indecision profile: Measurement
equivalence in the United States and South Korea. Journal of Career Assessment, 23(2), 225–235.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10690​72714​535028
Abrams, M. D., Ómarsdóttir, A. Ó., Björnsdóttir, M. D., Einarsdóttir, S., Martin, C., Carr, A., Brown, S.
D., & Rector, C. (2013). Measurement invariance of the career indecision profile. Journal of Career
Assessment, 21(3), 469–482. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10690​72712​47518
Albion, M. J., & Fogarty, G. J. (2002). Factors influencing career decision making in adolescents and
adults. Journal of Career Assessment, 10, 91–126. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10690​72702​01000​1006
Betz, N. E., & Serling, D. A. (1993). Construct validity of fear of commitment as an indicator of career
indecisiveness. Journal of Career Assessment, 1(1), 21–34. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10690​72793​
00100​104
Brailovskaia, J., & Margraf, J. (2020). How to measure self-esteem with one item? Validation of the
German Single-Item Self-Esteem Scale (G-SISE). Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse
Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 39(6), 2192–2202. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s12144-​018-​9911-x
Brown, S. D., Hacker, J., Abrams, M., Carr, A., Rector, C., Lamp, K., Telander, K., & Siena, A. (2012).
Validation of a four-factor model of career indecision. Journal of Career Assessment, 20(1), 3–21.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10690​72711​417154
Brown, S. D., & Rector, C. C. (2008). Conceptualizing and diagnosing problems in career decision-
making. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (4th ed., pp.
392–407). Wiley.
Brown, S. D., & Ryan Krane, N. E. (2000). Four (or five) sessions and a cloud of dust: Old assumptions
and new observations about career counseling. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of
counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 740–766). Wiley.
Carr, A., Rossier, J., Rosselet, J. G., Massoudi, K., Bernaud, J., Ferrari, L., Nota, L., Soresi, S., Rowe-
Johnson, M., Brown, S. D., & Roche, M. (2014). The career indecision profile. Journal of Career
Assessment, 22(1), 123–137. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10690​72713​492930
International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

Chartrand, J. M., Rose, M. L., Elliott, T. R., Marmarosh, C., & Caldwell, S. (1993). Peeling back the
onion: Personality, problem solving, and career decision-making style correlates of career indeci-
sion. Journal of Career Assessment, 1(1), 66–82. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10690​72793​00100​107
Di Fabio, A. D., Palazzeschi, L., Asulin-Peretz, L., & Gati, I. (2013). Career indecision versus indecisive-
ness: Associations with personality traits and emotional intelligence. Journal of Career Assessment,
21(1), 42–56. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10690​72712​454698
Duarte, M. E., & Rossier, J. (2008). Testing and assessment in an international context: Cross- and multi-
cultural issues. In J. A. Athanasou & R. Van Esbroeck (Eds.), International handbook of career
guidance (pp. 489–510). Springer.
Feldman, D. C. (2003). The antecedents and consequences of early career indecision among young
adults. Human Resource Management Review, 13(3), 499–531. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​s1053-​
4822(03)​00048-2
Ferrando, P. J., & Anguiano-Carrasco, C. (2010). El análisis factorial como técnica de investigación
en psicologia. Papeles Del Psicólogo, 31(1), 18–33.
Gati, I., Krausz, M., & Osipow, S. H. (1996). A taxonomy of difficulties in career decision making.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(4), 510–526. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-​0167.​43.4.​510
Gati, I., Ryzhik, T., & Vertsberger, D. (2013). Preparing young veterans for civilian life: The effects
of a workshop on career decision-making difficulties and self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 83(3), 373–385. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jvb.​2013.​06.​001
Gati, I., & Saka, N. (2001). High school students’ career-related decision-making difficulties. Jour-
nal of Counseling and Development, 79(3), 331–340. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/j.​1556-​6676.​2001.​
tb019​78.x
Hacker, J., Carr, A., Abrams, M., & Brown, S. D. (2013). Development of the career indecision
profile: Factor Structure, reliability and validity. Journal of Career Assessment, 21(1), 32–41.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10690​72712​453832
Hijazi, Y., Tatar, M., & Gati, I. (2004). Career decision-making difficulties among Israeli and Pales-
tinian Arab high-school seniors. Professional School Counseling, 8, 64–72. https://​www.​jstor.​
org/​stable/​42732​416
Hirschi, A. (2009). Career Adaptability development in adolescence: Multiple predictors and effect on
sense of power and life satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(2), 145–155. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​jvb.​2009.​01.​002
Hirschi, A., Herrmann, A., & Keller, A. C. (2015). Career adaptivity, adaptability, and adapting: A
conceptual and empirical investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 87, 1–10. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​jvb.​2014.​11.​008
Kelly, K. R., & Lee, W. (2002). Mapping the domain of career decision problems. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 61(2), 302–326. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1006/​jvbe.​2001.​1858
Kleiman, T., & Gati, I. (2004). Challenges of Internet-based assessment: Measuring career decision-
making difficulties. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 37, 41–55.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​07481​756.​2004.​11909​749
Krieshok, T. S., Black, M. D., & McKay, R. A. (2009). Career decision making: The limits of ration-
ality and the abundance of non-conscious processes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(3),
275–290. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jvb.​2009.​04.​006
Krumboltz, J. D. (2009). The happenstance learning theory. Journal of Career Assessment, 17(2),
135–154. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10690​72708​328861
Kulcsár, V., Dobrean, A., & Gati, I. (2020). Challenges and difficulties in career decision making:
Their causes, and their effects on the process and the decision. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
116, 103346. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jvb.​2019.​103346.
Lease, S. H. (2004). Effect of locus of control, work knowledge, and mentoring on career decision-
making difficulties: Testing the role of race and academic institution. Journal of Career Assess-
ment, 12, 239–254. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10690​72703​261537
Levin, N., Braunstein-Bercovitz, H., Lipshits-Braziler, Y., Gati, I., & Rossier, J. (2020). Testing the
structure of the Career Decision-Making Difficulties Questionnaire across country, gender, age,
and decision status. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 116, 103365. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jvb.​
2019.​103365
Lipshits-Braziler, Y., Gati, I., & Tatar, M. (2015). Strategies for coping with career indecision: Concur-
rent and predictive validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 170–179. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
jvb.​2015.​10.​004
 International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

Lorenzo-Seva, U. (1999). Promin: A method for oblique factor rotation. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 34, 347–356. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1207/​S1532​7906M​BR3403_3
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2006). FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor
analysis model. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 38(1), 88–91. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​3758/​bf031​92753
Maggiori, C., Rossier, J., & Savickas, M. L. (2017). Career adaptabilities scale-short form (CAAS-SF):
Construction and validation. Journal of Career Assessment, 25(2), 312–325. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1177/​10690​72714​565856
Martincin, K. M., & Stead, G. B. (2014). Five-Factor Model and difficulties in career decision making.
Journal of Career Assessment, 23(1), 3–19. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10690​72714​523081
Melo, J. M. (2018). Career search self-efficacy: Adaptação de uma escala e verificação das suas quali-
dades psicométricas. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Universidade de Coimbra: Faculdade de Psico-
logia e de Ciências da Educação.
Nota, L., Ginevra, M. C., & Soresi, S. (2012). The Career and Work Adaptability Questionnaire (CWAQ):
A first contribution to its validation. Journal of Adolescence, 35(6), 1557–1569. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​adole​scence.​2012.​06.​004
Penn, L. T., & Lent, R. W. (2019). The joint roles of career decision self-efficacy and personality traits in
the prediction of career decidedness and decisional difficulty. Journal of Career Assessment, 27(3),
457–470. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10690​72718​758296
Phang, A., Fan, W., & Arbona, C. (2020). Secure attachment and career indecision: The mediating role
of emotional intelligence. Journal of Career Development, 47(6), 657–670. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​
08948​45318​814366
Pimentel, C. E., Silva, F. M., Santos, J. L., Oliveira, K. G., Freitas, N. B., Couto, R. N., & Brito, T. R.
(2018). Single-item self-esteem scale: Brazilian adaptation and relationship with personality and
prosocial behavior. Psico-USF, 23(1), 1–11. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1590/​1413-​82712​01823​0101
Priyashantha, K., Dahanayake, W., & Maduwanthi, M. (2022). Career indecision: A systematic literature
review. Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences, 5(2), 79–102. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
jhass-​06-​2022-​0083.
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short ver-
sion of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1),
203–212. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jrp.​2006.​02.​001
Rassin, E., & Muris, P. (2005). To be or not to be… indecisive: Gender differences, correlations with
obsessive–compulsive complaints and behavioral manifestation. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 38, 1175–1181. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​paid.​2004.​07.​014
Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct
validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 151–161. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01461​67201​272002
Rossier, J. (2015). Career adaptability and life designing. In L. Nota & J. Rossier (Eds.), Handbook of life
design: From practice to theory and from theory to practice (pp. 153–167). Hogrefe.
Saka, N., Gati, I., & Kelly, K. R. (2008). Emotional and personality-related aspects of career-decision-
making difficulties. Journal of Career Assessment, 16(4), 403–424. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10690​
72708​318900
Santos, P. J. (2000). Indecisão generalizada: Um desafio para a orientação escolar e profissional. Psicolo-
gia: Teoria. Investigação e Prática, 2, 183–196.
Santos, P. J., Ferreira, J. A., & Gonçalves, C. M. (2014). Indecisiveness and career indecision: A test of
a theoretical model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(1), 106–114. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jvb.​
2014.​05.​004.
Savickas, M. L. (2005). The theory and practice of career construction. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent
(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 42–70).
Wiley.
Savickas, M. L. (2011). Career counseling. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Savickas, M. L., & Porfeli, E. J. (2012). Career adapt-abilities scale: Construction, reliability, and meas-
urement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 661–673. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jvb.​2012.​01.​011.
Serling, D. A., & Betz, N. E. (1990). Development and evaluation of a measure of fear of commitment.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37(1), 91–97. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-​0167.​37.1.​91
International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance

Shimizu, K. (2018). Dimensionality of career indecision: Methodological perspectives. In J. A. Ferreira,

M. Reitzle & E. Santos (Eds.), Career development in context (pp. 219–236). Imprensa da Universi-
dade de Coimbra. https://​doi.​org/​10.​14195/​978-​989-​26-​1451-9_7
Slaney, R. B. (1988). The assessment of career decision making. In W. B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow (Eds.),
Career decision making (pp. 33–76). Erlbaum.
Timmerman, M. E., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items
with parallel analysis. Psychological Methods, 16, 209–220. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0023​353
Vale, C. L., & Silva, J. T. (2019). Evidências de validade de uma medida de dificuldades de decisão
de carreira. Revista Brasileira De Orientação Profissional, 20(2), 57–70. https://​doi.​org/​10.​26707/​
1984-​7270/​2019v​20n2p​57
Xu, H. (2020a). Big Five personality traits and ambiguity management in career decision-making. The
Career Development Quarterly, 68(2), 158–172. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​cdq.​12220
Xu, H. (2020b). Career Indecision Profile-Short: Reliability and validity among employees and meas-
urement invariance across students and employees. Journal of Career Assessment, 28(1), 91–108.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10690​72719​831975
Xu, H. (2021). Career decision-making in an uncertain world: A dual-process framework. Current Psy-
chology, 42(5), 3978–3990. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12144-​021-​01746-z.
Xu, H., & Bhang, C. H. (2019). The structure and measurement of career indecision: A critical review.
The Career Development Quarterly, 67(1), 2–20. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​cdq.​12159.
Xu, H., & He, R. (2022). Facilitating international research on career indecision: Developing career inde-
cision profile-short-5 in China and the U.S. Journal of Career Assessment, 30(4), 719–738. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10690​72722​10804​49.
Xu, H., & Tracey, T. J. (2017). Development of an abbreviated career indecision profile-65 using item
response theory: The CIP-short. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(2), 222–232. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1037/​cou00​00182
Ziegler, M., Kemper, C. J., & Kruyen, P. (2014). Short scales—Five misunderstandings and ways to over-
come them [Editorial]. Journal of Individual Differences, 35(4), 185–189. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1027/​
1614-​0001/​a0001​48
Zobell, C. J., Nauta, M. M., & Hesson-McInnis, M. S. (2019). Career Indecision Profile-65 Scores: Test–
retest reliability and measurement equivalence in college and noncollege samples. Journal of Career
Assessment, 27(3), 510–526. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10690​72718​775692

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.