Interest fit and job satisfaction: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Employees who show better interest fit have higher job satisfaction.
“and job satisfaction (Hoff et al., 2020).”
From Interest Fit Beyond the RIASEC: The Comprehensive Assessment of Basic Interests—O*NET (CABIN-NET) (2026) · cites this paper as Hoff et al., 2020
Across three studies, basic interest fit consistently outperformed RIASEC interest fit in predicting career outcomes.
“Across three studies, whilst the predictive validity of RIASEC interest fit on satisfaction was compatible with recent meta-analysis findings (ρ = .19;Hoff et al., 2020), basic interest fit consistently outperformed RIASEC interest fit in predicting career outcomes across all three studies.”
From Interest Fit Beyond the RIASEC: The Comprehensive Assessment of Basic Interests—O*NET (CABIN-NET) (2026) · cites this paper as Hoff et al., 2020
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194 · see citing works
Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530 · Cited by 2,164 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chu, C., Russell, M. T., Hoff, K. A., Jonathan Phan, W. M., & Rounds, J. (2022) · Journal of Career Assessment · doi:10.1177/10690727221081554 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Self-citationThe German O*NET Interest Profiler Short Form
Roemer, L., Lewis, P., & Rounds, J. (2023) · Psychological Test Adaptation and Development · doi:10.1027/2698-1866/a000048 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Self-citationInterest Fit Beyond the RIASEC: The Comprehensive Assessment of Basic Interests—O*NET (CABIN-NET)
Chu, C., Hoff, K. A., Liu, Z., Heimpel, N. F., Greco, A., Oswald, F. L., & Rounds, J. (2026) · Journal of Career Assessment · doi:10.1177/10690727251322520 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“Across three studies, whilst the predictive validity of RIASEC interest fi t on satisfaction was compatible with recent meta-analysis fi ndings ( ρ = .19; Hoff et al., 2020), basic interest fi t consistently outperformed RIASEC interest fi t in predicting career outcomes across all three studies.”
Self-citation
- Authors
- Hoff, K. A., Song, Q. C., Wee, C. J. M., Phan, W. M. J., & Rounds, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Houston (US)
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- California State University, Long Beach (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hoff, Kevin A.
- Venue
- Journal of Vocational Behavior
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-12
- Volume
- 123
- Pages
- 103503
- ISSN
- 0001-8791 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3095651115
- Cited by
- 162
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 16
- FWCI
- 3.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Vocational Behavior (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education and Employability
- Keywords
- job satisfaction, career interest, interest inventories, career choice, career satisfaction, interest assessment, employee performance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
