A set of basic interest scales for the Strong Vocational Interest Blank for men.
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?
Basic interests are more fine-grained than RIASEC interests and better capture individuals' complex interest patterns.
“In comparison to general occupational domains (i.e., RIASEC interests), basic interests are more fine-grained and better capture individuals' complex interest patterns.”
From Interest Fit Beyond the RIASEC: The Comprehensive Assessment of Basic Interests—O*NET (CABIN-NET) (2026) · cites this paper as Campbell et al., 1968
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 10 · Cited by 87
- Authors
- Campbell, D. P., Borgen, F. H., Eastes, S. H., Johansson, C. B., & Peterson, R. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Minnesota (US)
- ORCID
- Peterson, Robert A.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 1968-12
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 6, Pt.2
- Pages
- 1-54
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W1608321407
- Cited by
- 87
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 16.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- Strong Vocational Interest Blank, interest measurement, men, career guidance
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
