Career Adaptability and Career Construction as Mediating Variables Between Hardiness and Vocational Identity

Abstract

Background: The Career Construction Theory (CCT) focuses on the active role people can play when they create and design their singular paths for career success. Unlike other career guidance theories that focus their attention on identifying vocational interests or on the fit between the person and the work settings, CCT raises the possibility that people can go beyond the determinants of their life. This study tested the adaptation model proposed by Career Construction Theory. Consolidation of vocational identity is particularly important at the university stage, in which people decide their first steps about their professional future. 

Method: Participants were 1023 students from Spain and Brazil. The Spanish subsample was composed of 602 participants, 34% were men (N = 207), and 66% were women (N = 395). The average age was 21.69. The Brazilian subsample was composed by 421 participants, 39% were men (N = 165), and 61% were women (N = 256), with an average age of 24.84. The four dimensions in the model were each operationally defined by a single indicator. The Hardiness Scale represented adaptive readiness. The Career Adapt-Abilities Scale represented adaptability resources. The Student Career Construction Inventory represented adapting responses. And finally, The Vocational Identity Status Assessment represented the adaptation result. 

Results: Bivariate correlations obtained between the measures were as expected by the theoretical model. All variables were significantly related to each other, and the values of the correlations were positive and quite high in both the Spanish and Brazilian subsamples. Structural Equation Modeling analysis of data indicated that the relationship between hardiness and vocational identity was mediated by both career adaptability and career construction. The overall fit indices for confirmatory factor analysis (CFAs) and structural equation models (SEMs) showed that the multiple factor structure models did not fit the data as well as the second-order structure model for hardiness, career adaptability and career construction. The multiple factor solutions only provided a better adjustment compared to the second-order solution for vocational identity. 

Conclusions: The analysis supported empirically the four-dimension model proposed by the Career Construction Theory. This major finding suggests new pathways to improve individual decision-making about work and career.