A Study of the Reliability and Validity of Holland’s RIASEC of Vocational Personalities in Arabic

Nahla Aljojo , Huda Saifuddin

American Journal of Information Systems. 2017, 5(1), 33-37. DOI: 10.12691/ajis-5-1-5

Published online: November 25, 2017

Abstract

There certain problems appear when using English language versions of robust psychometric
instruments to identify when it comes to pinpointing Vocational Personalities, in a learning environment
other than English native are usually written in English, intended to be used in a Western environment.
When employed in a separate language environment, there are problems during translation, as well as
cultural matters. An example of this is seen where there are linguistic inconsistencies during literal
question or other item translation, meaning there are minor (or major) changes in the meaning for the
translates output, which alters the validity and reliability of measurement of the estimations. A word for
word translation of Holland’s RIASEC of Vocational Personalities was applied to 178 students at the King
Abdulaziz University; this is a study that describes validity, internal reliability, factor structure and
Correlation Analysis for Holland’s RIASEC in Arabic.

Keywords: Holland’s RIASEC typesvocational interestspersonalityreliabilityvalidityfactor

analysisCorrelation Analysis

1. Introduction

1.1. Holland’s Theory of Interests

Holland’s 1, 2 interest-based theory is split through a total of six personality types and six parallel
environments: Realistic (R), Investigative (I), Artistic (A), Social (S), Enterprising (E), and Conventional (C)-
referred to collectively as RIASEC. In the Holland model, the connection that exists amongst a human's
personality and the environment they find themselves is direct: Personality is defined with regards to a
person's opinions regarding work, while work environments are defined with regards to the people who
are employed their and the actions they undertake. The RIASEC personality types are described through
likes and dislike that affect work environments decisions, and the latter is described through common
work actions and various requirements of employees. Under Holland’s 1, 2 theory, the six RIASEC
categories are defined based on a circular ordering, with the differences amongst these being inversely
proportional to how similar they are (see Figure 1).
 •
• Figure 1. Holland’s hexagon, a circumplex model of interest structure with dimensions proposed
by Hogan [3] and Prediger [7]

Holland described this framework as a hexagon, but numerous other researchers have described the
circular ordering and structure of the six RIASEC categories as a circumplex 3, 5, 6. In most cases, research
has put forward the notion that the six RIASEC interest types and work environments in the United
States are, in fact, of a circular ordering 5, 6. As a result, Holland’s categorisation of interest types and
parallel environments offers a collection of empirically supported reference points for describing the
circumplex framework of interests.

In Holland’s RIASEC of Vocational Personalities (Arabic version), there are 106 questions, with every one
needing the reader to respond with yes or no, and 18 questions can under each of the six personality
types - Realistic (R), Investigative (I), Artistic (A), Social (S), and Enterprising (E) . The exception is with
conventional (C), being involved in sixteen questions. The questions are shown, split up, in Table 1 below.
When displaying these queries to students, there were only yes or no answers provided for each
question 8.

• Table 1. The Questions of RIASEC

1.2. Reliability and Validity

Measures of reliability are employed in order to establish how consistent test scores are, and the degree
to which the test results are impacted by external factors. When test reliability is greater, then there is a
larger chance of there being consistency when evaluating differences amongst individuals. How reliable a
tool is can be shown through correlation coefficients. A reliability coefficient is described with the letter
r, and is a number between 0.00 and 1.00, where r=0 denotes zero reliability, and r=1.00 denoting
perfect reliability. Crucially, it should be highlighted that tests are not completely reliable, so r=1.00 is an
impossible score to achieve. In all cases, reliability coefficients are shown as a decimal, and when this is
larger, then the test scores are considered to be more reliable and consistent 9.

Validity is the second most crucial element when testing and making the decision to employ an
assessment tool. Reliability concentrates of the consistency of the evaluation outcomes, whereas validity
assesses usefulness. In order for a test to be considered valid, it needs to offer data that is beneficial
when it comes to making decisions. Validity evidence states that conclusions and predictions are
categorised through the test results.

Certain types of evidence are able to offer data based on the valid use of a test. All evidence is able to
establish the level of usefulness the test will have with specific individuals and situations. It is usually the
case that various validity types are examined in detail (e.g. construct validity, content validity, criterion
validity), it is better to consider these as sources of evidence that assess the overall validity of the test 9.

Face validity is how much a measure is seen to be linked with a certain construct, from the perspective
of the target group that the test is applied to 10. In most cases, respondents of a scale offer feedback on
scale items based on if they offer a robust and detailed depiction of the main idea. Face validity of the
short version of RIASEC was appraised by fifty five females aged twenty to twenty-four years old. These
individuals were all students at the King Abdul-Aziz University (Faculty of Computing and Information
Technology), where twenty-eight were studying computer science majors and twenty-seven were
studying information system majors. The feedback received showed that the shorter version of RIASEC
needed greater support on certain items.

As with face validity, content validity is related to the level that a scale accurately depicts the proposed
construct 10. On the other hand, instead of using the general public, experts evaluate their specialist
subject area. These experts offer feedback on the meaning of scale items, and whether they are
connected to the key concept accurately, as well as the construct of the general scale.

In this study, content validity has been evaluated by seven psychologist experts. According to these
experts, the original RIASEC scale is widely used in Saudi Arabia for career planning, and provides correct
guidance for an individual’s career development. Psychological Counselor experts state that job interests
are the best point from which to start when determining the right career path for a person.

2. Literature Review

Holland's typology received worldwide acclaim because of how straightforward it is, its ability to be
empirically evaluated, its ease of use, and how easily understood the results are 11. One of the most
appropriate instruments suggested for evaluation with the RIASEC types is the Self-Direct-Search - 12. It
has undergone 25 various translations, employed by over 22 million individuals from across the global,
with a mixture of cultural backgrounds 13. The main ideas in place regarding the six types of vocational
personality have wider empirical support, with outcomes stemming from numerous cross-cultural and
meta-analytical papers underline the associated validity 2, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19.

Under the Brazilian environment, the outcomes of the empirical studies through the Questionário de
Busca Auto-Dirigida 20, the title offered to the commercial side of Brazil's SDS, are in line with other
worldwide results. For example, Mansão and Yoshida 21, present clear findings for the validity linked to
the SDS's internal structure. Further research employing SDS uncovered evidence for validity through the
RIASEC model in Brazil, and in particular as it is connected with external variables, critical for the
comprehension of certain career types, like personality 22, 23, 24; career choice 4, 5; other measures of
interest 20, 23; self-efficacy for occupational activities 22; cognitive skills 22, 23; sex, school year 4 and
parents' education 25.

It has been stated in the work of Goldberg 26 that there are issues surrounding copyright restrictions in
personality testing. On a different note, Holland 2 has put forward the notion that the completion of the
RIASEC scale is thought of as an intervention linked independently with a career, because of the number
of job opportunities being given to the participants 27. Certain individuals might have a propensity to
enjoy many of the items on the scale, due to their psychological disposition. Conversely, it can also be
the scale that a critical personality might make them lean towards a stronger dislike for the scale's items,
or a general negative attitude towards them 18. In addition, RIASEC scales can be confused with matters
of prestige and gender 28. Situational factors' effect on how personalities are shared can also have
missing areas. Tett and Burnett 29 underline the fact that there are specific situational factors that impact
trait expression which can be employed to underline the conditions which prefer personality use in
selection efforts.

A Turkish research paper used a RIASEC scale made up of 41 items and changed to fit Turkish language
and culture. Every RIASEC type was depicted through 6 or 7 items. The results were gathered from a
sample of 364 business professionals. Survey outcomes showed that there was a satisfactory level of
reliability for the scale, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.889.

The paper's results put forward the notion that a short version of RIASEC requires significant changes in
order to provide validity when it comes to vocational profiling in the Turkish environment. Out of the
potential alterations shown in earlier comments, there must be extra attention given in order to not
cause problems when choosing Realistic and Conventional; Enterprising and Recognition items.
Moreover, Social and Conventional dimensions of RIASEC are shown to be linked with Work Values, and
so reviewing the items with these limitations in mind can be of greater relevance to interests, compared
to values that will significantly boost discriminant validity 30.

3. Methodology and Results

The robust Arabic translation consisted of a process involving a literal translation from English to Arabic,
then back from Arabic to English using different Arabic language experts. Then, a group of 7 Arabic and
English speaking psychologists and language experts were used to ensure consistency of meaning and
concepts covering each of the 106 questions in the Arabic version of Holland’s RIASEC. The Arabic
version of Holland’s RIASEC was applied to a selection 178 females students. All participants were
students from the King Abdul-Aziz University (Faculty of Computing and Information Technology), with
twenty-eight of them studying computer science majors, twenty-seven studying information system
majors, and one hundred and twenty three being preparatory year distance learning students.
3.1. Internal Consistency Reliability

To estimate the internal consistency reliability of the scores, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was
calculated for each of the six Vocational Personalities of the Arabic version of Holland’s RIASEC, based on
the sample of 178 female students. All participants were students from the King Abdul-Aziz University
(Faculty of Computing and Information Technology), with twenty-eight of them studying computer
science majors, twenty-seven studying information system majors, and one hundred and twenty three
being preparatory year distance learning students. The value of Cronbach’s alpha is represented in Table
2.

• Table 2. The value of Cronbach’s alpha

3.2. Comparison of the Arabic Version of Holland’s RIASEC Scores between Computer Science Majors,
Information System Majors, and Preparatory Year Distance Learning Students

The comparison of students with computer science majors, information system majors, and preparatory
year distance learning student’s results from the Arabic version of Holland’s RIASEC survey are shown
in Table 3, based on Vocational Personalities frequencies as follows:

• High Vocational Personalities of student Computer science as Social (S), while there are low Vocational
Personalities as Artistic (A).

• High Vocational Personalities of student Information system as Artistic (A), while there are low
Vocational Personalities as Realistic (R).

• High Vocational Personalities of student Preparatory year distance learning as Social (S), while there
are low Vocational Personalities as Realistic (R).

• Table 3. Comparison of student’s Vocational Personalities frequencies

3.3. Factors Analysis

Factor analysis provides evidence of construct validity for the Arabic version of Holland’s RIASEC. As a
final verification of the items' ability to represent the Holland interest areas appropriately, 106 items
were subjected to factor analysis. A principal component analysis with a six-factor solution was rotated
using a varimax procedure. Table 4 shows the rotated factor loadings for each item on each scale.

• Table 4. Principal Component Analysis

3.4. Correlation Analysis

As seen in Table 6, inter-correlations among Holland’s Vocational Personalities are as follows 8:

• Realistic which correlated positively with Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional, and Investigative

• Artistic which correlated positively with Realistic, Conventional, Social, Enterprising and Investigative

• Conventional which correlated positively with Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Realistic and Investigative

• Social which correlated positively with Realistic, Artistic, Conventional, Enterprising and Investigative

• Enterprising which correlated positively with Realistic, Artistic, Conventional, Social and Investigative

• Investigative which correlated positively with Realistic, Artistic, Conventional, Social and Enterprising.

• Table 5. Descriptive Statistics

•
 • Table 6. Correlations Matrix

4. Discussion & Conclusion

A key outcome of this paper is that the use of the translated Arabic version of Holland’s RIASEC of
Vocational Personalities shows internal consistency. As a result, there is evidence supporting the use of
the Arabic version of Holland’s RIASEC of Vocational Personalities as a metric for gathering and
comprehending Vocational Personalities of Arabic speaking learners.

This study looks at how reliable and valid findings from Holland’s RIASEC of Vocational Personalities
were. Reliability investigates how consistent the evaluation was, whereas validity is focused on the
conclusions drawn from the test results. To accurately evaluate psychological traits to maximise the
usefulness, there must be sufficient reliability and validity. The reliability prediction for the six Vocational
Personalities of the Arabic version of Holland’s RIASEC using 178 students in the Arabic translation
showed that the value of Cronbach’s alpha was substantial, between 0.601 and 0.699.

Factor analysis of the Holland’s RIASEC identified six factors related to the six Vocational Personalities. An
examination of the construct involved, together with psychologist expert discussion for every facto,
showed that the variables had a clear relation to the goals of the item, offering input regarding construct
validity for Holland’s RIASEC, as well as inter-correlations between Holland’s Vocational Personalities
being shown to have a positive correlation.

References

[1] Holland, J. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of counseling psychology, 6(1), 35.

In article View Article

[2] Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work
environments. Psychological Assessment Resources.
 In article View Article

[3] Hogan, R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium
on Motivation: Vol. 30. Personality: Current theory and research (pp. 55-89). Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.

In article View Article

[4] Sartori FA, Noronha APP, Godoy S, & Ambiel RAM. (2010). Interesses profissionais de jovens de
ensino médio: Estudo correlacional entre a Escala de Aconselhamento Profissional e o Self-
Directed-Search Carrier Explorer ENT#091;Professional interests of high school students: A
correlational study between the Escala de Aconselhamento and Self-Directed-Search Career
ExplorerENT#093;. Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas), 27(2), 215-225.

In article View Article

[5] Rounds, J., & Tracey, T. J. (1993). Prediger’s dimensional representation of Holland’s RIASEC
circumplex. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 875-890.

In article View Article

[6] Rounds, J., Tracey, T. J., & Hubert, L. (1992). Methods for evaluating vocational interest structural
hypotheses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 239-259.

In article View Article

[7] Prediger, D. J. (1982). Dimensions underlying Holland’s hexagon: Missing link between interests
and occupations? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 259-287.

In article View Article

[8] Aljojo, N. (2016). Choosing a Career Based Personality Matching: A Case Study of King Abdulaziz
University. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED COMPUTER SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS,
7(2), 215-221.

In article View Article

[9] Bakker, S., & Macnab, D. (2004). Career Interest Profiler Manual.

In article

[10] Furr, R. M., Scale construction and psychometrics for social and personality psychology, London:
SAGE Publications, (2011).

In article View Article

[11] Nauta MM. (2010). The development, evolution, and status of Holland's theory of vocational
personalities: Reflections and future directions of counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 57(1), 11-22.

In article View Article PubMed

[12] Holland JL, Fritzsche B, Powell A. (1994). SDS Self-Directed-Search: Technical manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.

In article

[13] Goldstein G, Hersen M. (2000). Handbook of psychological assessment (3rd ed.). Oxford, United
Kingdom: Elsevier Science.

In article View Article

[14] Kantamneni N, Fouad N. (2011). Structure of vocational interests for diverse groups on the 2005
strong interest inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78(2), 193-201.

In article View Article

[15] Rounds J, Tracey TJ. (1996). Cross-cultural structural equivalence of RIASEC models and measures.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(3), 310-329.

In article View Article

[16] Tien H-LS. (2011). An exploration of adult career interests and work values in Taiwan. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 12(4), 559-568.
 In article View Article

[17] Tracey, T. J., & Rounds, J. (1992). Evaluating the RIASEC circumplex using high-point codes. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 41, 295-311.

In article View Article

[18] Walsh, W. B., Savickas, M. L., & Hartung, P. J. (2013). Handbook of Vocational Psychology: Theory,
Research, and Practice. Routledge.

In article View Article

[19] Yang W, Stokes GS, Hui CH. (2005). Cross-cultural validation of Holland's interest structure in
Chinese population. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(3), 379-396.

In article View Article

[20] Primi R, Mansão CSM, Muniz M, Nunes MFO. (2010). SDS - Questionário de busca auto-dirigida
para psicólogos: Manual técnico da versão brasileira ENT#091; SDS - Self-Directed-Search
Questionnaire for psychologists: Technical manual of the Brazilian versionENT#093;. São Paulo, SP:
Casa do Psicólogo.

In article

[21] Mansão CSM, Yoshida EMP. (2006). SDS - Questionário de Busca Auto-Dirigida: Precisão e validade
ENT#091; SDS - Self-Directed Search Career Explorer: Precision and validityENT#093; Revista
Brasileira de Orientação Profissional, 7(2), 67-79. Retrieved from
https://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/rbop/v7n2/v7n2a07.pdf

In article View Article

[22] Nunes MFO, Noronha APP. (2009). Relações entre interesses, personalidade e habilidades
cognitivas: Um estudo com adolescentes ENT#091; Relationships between interests, personality
and cognitive abilities: A study with adolescentsENT#093;. Psico-USF, 14(2), 131-141.

In article View Article

[23] Primi R, Bighetti CA, Munhoz AH, Noronha APP, Polydoro SAJ, Di Nucci EP, Pelegrini MCK. (2002).
Personalidade, interesses e habilidades: Um estudo correlacional da BPR-5, LIP e do 16PF ENT#091;
Personality, interests and abilities: A correlational study of BPR-5, LIP and 16PFENT#093;. Avaliação
Psicológica, 1(1), 61-72. Retrieved from https://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/avp/v1n1/v1n1a07.pdf

In article View Article

[24] Primi R, Moggi MA, Casellato EO. (2004). Estudo correlacional do Inventário de Busca Auto-Dirigida
(self-directed-search) com o IFP ENT#091; Correlational study of the Self-Directed Search with the
IFPENT#093;. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional, 8(1), 47-54.

In article View Article

[25] Noronha APP, Ottati F. (2010). Interesses profissionais de jovens e escolaridade dos pais ENT#091;
Youth's professional interests and their parents' educationENT#093;. Revista Brasileira de
Orientação Profissional, 11(1), 37-47. Retrieved from
https://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/rbop/v11n1/v11n1a05.pdf

In article View Article

[26] Goldberg, L. R., A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-
level facets of several five-factor models, (1999).

In article View Article

[27] Armstrong, P., Allison, W., & Rounds, J., Development and initial validation of brief public domain
RIASEC marker scales. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 287-299, (2008).

In article View Article

[28] Deng, C.P., Armstrong, P. I., & Rounds, J., The fit of Holland’s RIASEC modelto US.

In article View Article

[29] Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D., A Personality Trait-Based Interactionist Model of Job Performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, Vol. 88, No. 3, 500-517, (2003).

In article View Article

[30] Süerdem, A., & Erkök, B. (2016, January). Assessing the reliability and validity of a shorter version
of RIASEC in Turkish. In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 26). EDP Sciences occupations. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 71, 1-22, (2007).

In article View Article