The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Defining perceived employability: a psychological approach
Abstract
Purpose: – The purpose of this paper is to define employability within the psychological literature with a focus upon perceived employability. Design/methodology/approach: – To achieve the aim, the paper defines five objectives as follows. First, the paper discusses how employability is interpreted in the psychological literature. Second, the paper defines perceived employability within this literature. Third, the paper goes one step further by comparing the perceived employability approach to other approaches in the psychological field, namely, approaches based on competences and dispositions. The paper concludes with an integration of the three approaches into a process model to demonstrate their interrelationships, which the authors see as the fourth objective. With approach, the paper refers to a specific view on employability, including both definitions and measures, which share significant common ground. Finally, the paper highlights some implications. Findings: – The paper concludes that each approach comes with specific advantages and disadvantages. Researchers and practitioners should use an approach according to the general research question one aims to address. Originality value: – The authors believe to contribute to the employability literature in the following ways. First, the paper raises awareness that not all psychological notions of employability are equal, though they are often treated as such in the literature. Second, the paper highlights how perceived employability is tied to competences and dispositions. That is, though all notions are clearly different, they are also related.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Self-efficacy: The exercise of control
Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999) · Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158 · Cited by 46,835
Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.44.3.513 · Cited by 18,187
PREDICTORS OF OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE CAREER SUCCESS: A META‐ANALYSIS
NG, T. W. H., EBY, L. T., SORENSEN, K. L., & FELDMAN, D. C. (2005) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00515.x · Cited by 2,412
Cited by
Crafting your Career: How Career Competencies Relate to Career Success via Job Crafting
Akkermans, J., & Tims, M. (2017) · Applied Psychology · doi:10.1111/apps.12082 · Cited by 401
Forrier, A., Verbruggen, M., & De Cuyper, N. (2015) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.04.007 · Cited by 273
Self-citationJackson, D., & Wilton, N. (2017) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/07294360.2016.1229270 · Cited by 263
‘This isn’t forever for me’: Perceived employability and migrant gig work in Norway and Sweden
Newlands, G. (2024) · Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space · doi:10.1177/0308518x221083021 · Cited by 79
Working and employability after 75 in Australia
Patrickson, M. (2016) · Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources · doi:10.1111/1744-7941.12090 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Vanhercke, D., De Cuyper, N., Peeters, E., & De Witte, H.
- Venue
- Personnel Review
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2014-05-27
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 592-605
- ISSN
- 0048-3486 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1979145068
- Cited by
- 499
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 105.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Defining perceived employability: a psychological approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/pr-07-2012-0110
- The paper
- Vanhercke, D., De Cuyper, N., Peeters, E., & De Witte, H. (2014). Defining perceived employability: a psychological approach. Personnel Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-07-2012-0110
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.