CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8Career Development and DiversityPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and Assessment

The German O*NET Interest Profiler Short Form

Open access
Roemer, Lena, Lewis, Phil, Rounds, James·2023·Psychological Test Adaptation and Development
DOI 10.1027/2698-1866/a000048
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract. Holland’s RIASEC model is the dominant framework to conceptualize vocational interests. It describes vocational interests with six broad domains: realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and conventional. The O*NET Interest Profiler Short Form is a freely accessible inventory measuring vocational interests according to Holland’s model with 60 items. With this manuscript, we provide a translation of the inventory into German and evaluate the scores’ psychometric qualities, construct-related and criterion-related validity. We used data from an age-diverse ( N = 276) and high-school sample ( N = 672). Internal consistency estimates of the scale scores were adequate. Randomization tests and multidimensional scaling showed that the scores’ structural properties mirrored the RIASEC theoretical model. Scale scores were sensitive to gender differences and could predict participants’ actual and ideal occupations with reasonable hit rates. Overall, the German O*NET Interest Profiler Short Form seems apt for usage in career counseling and research settings.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper translates the O*NET Interest Profiler Short Form into German and evaluates its psychometric properties in an age-diverse sample (N = 276) and a high-school sample (N = 672). Scores showed adequate reliability, largely supported the RIASEC hexagonal structure, were sensitive to gender differences, and predicted actual and ideal occupations with reasonable hit rates.

Key findings

  • Internal consistency was adequate across scales: McDonald’s omega was ω ≥ .80 in both samples (e.g., realistic .86/.87, investigative .87/.89, artistic .88/.88, social .80/.80, enterprising .84/.83, conventional .88/.86).
  • Structural validity largely mirrored Holland’s RIASEC model: randomization correspondence indices were .64 (p = .03) for the age-diverse sample and .86 (p = .02) for the high-school sample; MDS stress values were .01 and .05. Adjacent domains tended to correlate more strongly than alternate/opposite domains (e.g., realistic–investigative r = .34 in high school; realistic–artistic r = .11; realistic–social r = .06).
  • Gender differences were largest for realistic (d = 0.70 age-diverse, 0.80 high-school) and social interests (d = −0.36, −0.60); women scored higher on artistic interests (d = −0.38, −0.30), while conventional interests showed higher scores for men (d = 0.22, 0.51), unlike the meta-analytic estimate of −0.33.
  • Criterion-related validity: overall hit rates were 35.3% for actual jobs and 44.6% for ideal jobs; accuracy ratios were mostly > 1, e.g., participants with high realistic interests were 3.0× more likely to have a realistic occupation based on the sample base rate. Conventional interests had low hit rates (0% actual, 14% ideal).

Methods

  • The O*NET IP Short Form was translated into German and backtranslated; the response format was adapted to a five-point interest rating (1 = not at all interesting to 5 = very interesting) without emojis.
  • Samples: age-diverse adults (N = 276; mean age 32, SD = 14.1; 59% women) recruited by psychology students, and high-school students at 12 Gymnasium schools (N = 672; mean age 17.3, SD = 1.2; 57% women). After data-quality exclusions, Table 1 reports N = 265 and N = 659.
  • Measures and analyses: 60 items, 10 per RIASEC domain, scored as unit-weighted means; the BFI-2 was administered in the high-school sample; actual and ideal occupations in the age-diverse sample were coded with O*NET RIASEC codes. Analyses included McDonald’s omega, correlations, randomization tests, multidimensional scaling, gender effect sizes, and hit rates/accuracy ratios.

Limitations

  • The paper states sample restrictions: both samples over-represent higher educational backgrounds, realistic and conventional scores were relatively low, and results should not be taken as representative of the German population; validation for further populations is pending.
  • The paper states that measurement invariance with the original English version was not formally examined, so direct score comparisons are not yet warranted; data were cross-sectional, so test-retest reliability and predictive validity over time were not explored; convergent validity with other vocational interest measures was not examined; and the RIASEC level is broad rather than basic interests.
  • Evident from the text: gender-specific structural analyses showed some deviations (e.g., artistic and social order reverted for women in the age-diverse sample; artistic interests staked out for men in the high-school sample), and conventional items may be differentially interpreted because many focus on software/computer activities; criterion analyses also relied on sample-based and Swiss labor-market base rates because no German population base rate was available.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1027/2698-1866/a000048

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

4 of 45 cited sources checked · 2 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Vocational interests and personality traits describe distinct aspects of human individuality.

    “It is important to note, however, that although vocational interests and personality traits might share similar psychological processes (Hoff, Song, Einarsdóttir, et al., 2020;Mount et al., 2005), the two phenomena describe distinct aspects of human individuality (see also Roemer et al., 2023).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Hoff, Song, Einarsdóttir, et al., 2020

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Mount et al., 2005 source
    • cites Roemer et al., 2023 source
  • Findingreasoning

    An exception were the low hit rates for conventional interest (0% and 14%, for actual and ideal occupations, respectively).

    “An exception were the low hit rates for conventional interest (0% and 14%, for actual and ideal occupations, respectively), which could be because few people had high conventional interest scores (≤ 6%), and the base rates for conventional occupations were also relatively low (15% and 3%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingnone given

    In most cases, these additional accuracy ratios increased compared with the ratios corrected for the sample base rate.

    “In most cases, these additional accuracy ratios increased compared with the ratios corrected for the sample base rate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Correcting for the sample base rate, the accuracy ratio was in all but one case > 1, meaning that participants' occupations were more accurately predicted based on participants' interest scores than based on the base rate alone.

    “Correcting for the sample base rate, the accuracy ratio was in all but one case > 1, meaning that participants' occupations were more accurately predicted based on participants' interest scores than based on the base rate alone.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In the age-diverse sample, the position of artistic interest somewhat staked out.

    “In the age-diverse sample, the position of artistic interest somewhat staked out, suggesting that artistic interest was slightly more distant from the other interests than expected.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 23
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 28

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Separated per domain, hit rates ranged between 17% and 69%, largely falling into the meta-analytic provided hit rate confidence interval.

    “Separated per domain, hit rates ranged between 17% and 69%, largely falling into the meta-analytic provided hit rate confidence interval (Hanna & Rounds, 2020).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hanna & Rounds, 2020 source

      The paper reports meta-analytic hit rates with confidence intervals in its hit-calculation results (Chapter 5: Conclusion), so it supports the reference to a meta-analytic interval. Its Interest categories and base rates section does not report domain hit rates spanning 17%–69%, however, or establish that those rates largely fall within that interval; the roughly 17% figure in the paper is a chance base rate, not a domain hit rate. (LLM, conf=0.80)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The German O*NET IP proves useful to predict individuals' career choice, and it does so similarly well as many other interest inventories.

    “O*NET IP proves useful to predict individuals' career choice, and it does so similarly well as many other interest inventories (Hanna & Rounds, 2020).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hanna & Rounds, 2020 source

      The Objective One section reports that interest inventories predict career choice with an overall accuracy of 50.3%, supporting their general usefulness. The inventory moderator results report varying hit rates across inventories, but our copy provides no result for the German O*NET IP or comparison showing that it performs similarly to other inventories. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    More specific, so-called basic interests were shown to yield more precise predictions than RIASEC domain scores.

    “More specific, so-called basic interests were shown to yield more precise predictions than RIASEC domain scores (Hanna & Rounds, 2020;Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996;Ralston et al., 2004).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Hanna & Rounds, 2020 source
    • cites Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Ralston et al., 2004

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The greatest discrepancy from meta-analysis was for conventional interests, where results in our samples indicated higher scores for men, particularly in the high-school sample.

    “The greatest discrepancy from metaanalysis was for conventional interests, where results in our samples indicated higher scores for men, particularly in the high-school sample.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Randomization test correspondence indices were .64 (p = .03) and .86 (p = .02) for the age-diverse and high-school samples.

    “CIs were .64(p = .03)and .86(p = .02)for the age-diverse and high-school sample.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Only for realistic interests the ratio decreased, which may be due to fewer than average individuals holding realistic jobs in our sample.

    “Only for realistic interests the ratio decreased, which may be due to fewer than average individuals holding realistic jobs in our sample.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Social interests also correlated moderately with conscientiousness (r = .15), which was not the case in the original version (r = À.04) or in the meta-analysis (ρ = .07).

    “Somewhat deviating from the previous results, social interests also correlated moderately with conscientiousness (r = .15),which was not the case in the original version (r = À.04;Rounds et al., 2021) or in the meta-analysis (ρ = .07,Mount et al., 2005).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Rounds et al., 2021

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Mount et al., 2005 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    We observed moderate to high correlations between artistic interests and openness (r = .55), enterprising interests and extraversion (r = .33), and social interests and extraversion (r = .20).

    “As expected from previous meta-analytic findings (Mount et al., 2005), we observed moderate to high correlations between artistic interests and openness (r = .55),enterprising interests and extraversion (r = .33),and social interests and extraversion (r = .20).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mount et al., 2005 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Across domains, overall hit rates were 35.3% for actual jobs and 44.6% for ideal jobs.

    “Across domains, overall hit rates were 35.3% for actual jobs and 44.6% for ideal jobs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The O*NET Interest Profiler Long Form formed the basis for the 60-item O*NET IP Short Form.

    “The O*NET Interest Profiler Long Form formed the basis for the 60-item O*NET IP Short Form (Rounds et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rounds et al., 2010

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    No additional data screening techniques were employed in the age-diverse sample.

    “No additional data screening techniques were employed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A wide range of studies has tested and generally corroborated or refined the hexagonal structure of vocational interests.

    “A wide range of studies has tested and generally corroborated or refined the hexagonal structure of vocational interests (Day & Rounds, 1998;Long & Tracey, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Day & Rounds, 1998 source
    • cites Long & Tracey, 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The results converged across the two samples and were largely consistent with meta-analytic findings on gender differences.

    “As shown in Table 3, the results converged across the two samples and were largely consistent with meta-analytic findings (Su et al., 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Su et al., 2009

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Specific links between vocational interests and Big Five personality traits have long been established.

    “Specific links with Big Five personality traits (Mount et al., 2005) have long been established.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mount et al., 2005 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Men tend to report higher realistic (d = 0.84) and investigative (d = 0.26) interests.

    “While men tend to report higher realistic (d = 0.84) and investigative (d = 0.26) interests, women tend to report higher social (d = À0.68),artistic (d = À0.35), and conventional (d = À0.33)interests.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Su et al., 2009

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The RIASEC interest domains are posited to reflect a hexagonal structure that represents the psychological similarity of the six domains.

    “The RIASEC interest domains are posited to reflect a hexagonal structure that represents the psychological similarity of the six domains (Holland, 1997;Prediger, 1982;Rounds & Tracey, 1993).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Holland, 1997

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Prediger, 1982 source
    • cites Rounds & Tracey, 1993 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Vocational interests are integrated in a nomological network with other individual differences.

    “Vocational interests are integrated in a nomological network with other individual differences (Armstrong et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Armstrong et al., 2008 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Persons high on enterprising interests score higher on extraversion (ρ = .40).

    “For example, persons with high levels of artistic interests typically score higher on the Big Five trait openness (ρ = .41,Mount et al., 2005) or persons high on enterprising interests score higher on extraversion (ρ = .40).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mount et al., 2005 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Correcting for the Swiss labor market base rate yielded a somewhat different pattern, which is most likely explained with our sample over-representing higher-educated individuals, preferring nonrepresentative jobs.

    “Correcting for the Swiss labor market base rate yielded a somewhat different pattern, which is most likely explained with our sample over-representing higher-educated individuals, preferring nonrepresentative jobs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Correlations between the interest scores and personality trait scores converged with previous findings, suggesting that the scores of the German O*NET IP were adequately located in the nomological network of vocational interests.

    “Also, correlations between the interest scores and personality trait scores converged with previous findings (Mount et al., 2005;Rounds et al., 2021), suggesting that the scores of the German O*NET IP were adequately located in the nomological network of vocational interests.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Mount et al., 2005 source
    • cites Rounds et al., 2021

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    No additional data screening techniques were employed in the high-school sample.

    “No additional data screening techniques were employed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Vocational interests are related to cognitive abilities, self-efficacy beliefs, values and goals.

    “Also, vocational interests are related to cognitive abilities (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997), self-efficacy beliefs (Rottinghaus et al., 2003), values and goals (Stoll et al., 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997 source
    • cites Rottinghaus et al., 2003 source
    • cites Stoll et al., 2020 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Vocational interests predict outcomes in nonwork life domains.

    “Vocational interests even predict outcomes in nonwork life domains (Stoll et al., 2017), underlining their importance to describe human individuality.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stoll et al., 2017

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The O*NET Interest Profiler was developed to provide publicly available scales for assessing vocational interests as conceptualized in Holland's model.

    “The O*NET Interest Profiler (O*NET IP; Lewis & Rivkin, 1999) was developed to provide publicly available scales for assessing vocational interests as conceptualized in Holland's model.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lewis & Rivkin, 1999

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Women tend to report higher social (d = À0.68), artistic (d = À0.35), and conventional (d = À0.33) interests.

    “While men tend to report higher realistic (d = 0.84) and investigative (d = 0.26) interests, women tend to report higher social (d = À0.68),artistic (d = À0.35), and conventional (d = À0.33)interests.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Su et al., 2009

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    To ensure data quality, 11 participants who provided the same answer in at least 85% of the interest items were excluded from the age-diverse sample.

    “To ensure data quality, we excluded 11 participants who provided the same answer in min.85% of the interest items.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Vocational interests were meta-analytically shown to exhibit relatively large gender differences.

    “Vocational interests were moreover meta-analytically shown to exhibit relatively large gender differences (Su et al., 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Su et al., 2009

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Persons with high levels of artistic interests typically score higher on the Big Five trait openness (ρ = .41).

    “For example, persons with high levels of artistic interests typically score higher on the Big Five trait openness (ρ = .41,Mount et al., 2005) or persons high on enterprising interests score higher on extraversion (ρ = .40).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mount et al., 2005 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The O*NET IP Short Form was translated into German by a bilingual person and backtranslated by another bilingual person.

    “The O*NET IP Short Form was translated into German by a bilingual person and backtranslated by another bilingual person.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Vocational interests can direct, energize, and sustain behavior, making them a relevant predictor for outcomes like job or study choice, engagement, and performance.

    “Vocational interests can direct, energize, and sustain behavior which makes them a relevant predictor for outcomes like job or study choice, engagement, and performance (e.g., Nye et al., 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nye et al., 2012 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    To ensure data quality, 13 participants who provided the same answer in at least 85% of the interest items were excluded from the high-school sample.

    “To ensure data quality, we excluded 13 participants who provided the same answer in min.85% of the interest items.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    The primary use of the O*NET IP is career exploration and planning.

    “The primary use of the O*NET IP is career exploration and planning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The O*NET IP can also be used for research purposes.

    “The instrument can be also used for research purposes (Rounds et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rounds et al., 2021

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    The target population of the O*NET IP consists of the adult workforce with a focus on young adults and of populations commonly sampled in psychological research settings.

    “The target population of the O*NET IP therefore consists of the adult workforce with a focus on young adults and of populations commonly sampled in psychological research settings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    While the hexagonal structure was generally supported, the position of artistic interests slightly diverged from the other domains in the age-diverse sample.

    “Third, while the hexagonal structure was generally supported, the position of artistic interests slightly diverged from the other domains in the age-diverse sample.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    We examined the psychometric qualities of the German O*NET IP scores with cross-sectional data.

    “Third, we examined the psychometric qualities of the German O*NET IP scores with cross-sectional data.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study could not explore the convergent validity of the scores of the German O*NET IP.

    “Fifth, we could not explore the convergent validity of the scores of the German O*NET IP.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    The O*NET IP does not explicate basic interests and resulting scores cover a variety of basic interests.

    “However, the O*NET IP does not explicate basic interests and resulting scores cover a variety of basic interests.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    We did not formally examine the measurement invariance with the original version, such that direct comparisons between the scores of the German O*NET IP and of the original English version are not yet warranted.

    “Second, we did not formally examine the measurement invariance with the original version, such that direct comparisons between the scores of the German O*NET IP and of the original English version are not yet warranted.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In the gender-specific analyses, adherence to the assumed structure somewhat deteriorated, deterioration was mainly associated with artistic and social interests, and for women in the age-diverse sample, the order of artistic and social interests even reverted.

    “Similarly, in the gender-specific analyses, adherence to the assumed structure somewhat deteriorated, deterioration was mainly associated with artistic and social interests, and for women in the age-diverse sample, the order of artistic and social interests even reverted.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Although the German O*NET IP proved useful to predict participants' actual and ideal occupations, prediction was not perfect.

    “Second, although the German O*NET IP proved useful to predict participants' actual and ideal occupations, prediction was not perfect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Overall, this finding underlines the importance of instructing participants to rate the activities in terms of occupational activities.

    “Overall, this finding underlines the importance of instructing participants to rate the activities in terms of occupational activities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    They validate usage of the German O*NET IP in two subpopulations commonly targeted in vocational interest research and practice, but for further populations, validation is still pending.

    “Instead, they validate usage of the German O*NET IP in two subpopulations commonly targeted in vocational interest research and practice, but for further populations, validation is still pending.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
43 of 43

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No base rate exists for actual or ideal occupations in Germany at population level.

    “To our knowledge, no base rate exists for actual or ideal occupations in Germany at population level, which is why we used (1) sample-based base rates and (2) base rates reported for the actual occupations in the Swiss labor market (Ghetta et al., 2018).”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The German O*NET IP scores remain relatively consistent and predictive over time.

    “Based on prior studies (e.g., Hanna & Rounds, 2020;Low et al., 2005;Rounds et al., 2021), we assume the German O*NET IP scores to remain relatively consistent and predictive over time.”
2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Bergmann C., 2005, Allgemeiner Interessen-Struktur-Test mit Umwelt-Struktur-Test (UST-R): AIST-R. Manual [General Interest Structure Test and Environmental Structure Test].
  2. Campbell D. P., 1992, Manual for the Campbell interest and skill survey: CISS
  3. DeCeanne A., 2017, A RIASEC snapshot of the modern U.S. workforce
  4. D. A. C. Donnay, 2005, Strong Interest Inventory manual: Research, development, and strategies for interpretation
  5. Holland J. L., 1994, The self-directed search (SDS). Technical manual
  6. Kelley K., 2018, MBESS: the MBESS R package
  7. Lewis P., 1999, Development of the O*NET Interest Profiler
  8. Morris J., 2021, A weighted O*NET keyword search (WWS)
  9. Rounds J., 2008, Second generation occupational interest profiles for the O*NET system: Summary
  10. Rounds J., 2021, O*NET Interest Profiler manual
  11. Rounds J., 2016, Examining the efficacy of emoji anchors for the O*NET Interest Profiler Short Form
  12. Rounds J., 2022, Updating vocational interests information for the O*NET content model
  13. Rounds J., 2010, O*NET Interest Profiler Short Form psychometric characteristics: Summary
  14. Rounds J., 2013, Occupational Interest Profiles for new and emerging occupations in the O*NET system: Summary
  15. Rounds J., 1999, Development of O*NET Interest Profiler: Reliability, validity, and self-scoring

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Roemer, L., Lewis, P., & Rounds, J.
Affiliations
  • GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences (DE)
  • National Center for O*NET Development, Raleigh, NC, USA
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Roemer, Lena
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Test Adaptation and Development
Publisher
Hogrefe Publishing Group
Published
2023-07-01
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
156-167
ISSN
2698-1866 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1027/2698-1866/a000048
OpenAlex
W4384343864
Semantic Scholar
bcb11d29ef42a191505b280a4d3c37353771c0e5
Cited by
8
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Psychological Test Adaptation and Development (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion)
  • Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
U.S. Department of Labor
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
career interest, Holland's RIASEC model, German translation, psychometric validation, construct validity, criterion validity, gender differences, career guidance, high school students

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-28.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-28.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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