History of Interest Inventory Development

Parsons (1909), a pioneer in vocational guidance, and other counselors working with him in Boston around the turn of the 20th century saw a strong need for individual analysis, individual occupational study, and counselors who were able to share with the counselee the interpretative activities necessary for successful vocational guidance, but the “lack of adequate techniques of individual analysis meant that most of that work relied on self-analysis” (Super, 1942, p. 2). Establishing the Vocations Bureau in Boston, Parsons chose to help adolescents to identify their capabilities and to choose jobs with reasonable success expectations. In order to accomplish this, Parsons suggested young people read biographies, observe workers on the job, and examine then-existing occupational descriptions.

Early researchers such as Alfred Binet, Arthur Otis, and Lewis Terman began studying individual differences in intelligence and developing tests to measure these differences prior to World War I (Super, 1983). Because of the need to classify large numbers of new entrants into the Army and to assign them to appropriate types of military jobs, the Army built on previous research and pioneered the use of intelligence testing and developed special aptitude tests. Those technologists, interested in providing tools for practitioners who were involved in these efforts, led the way in the development of instruments and methods and their use in personnel selection, training, and vocational counseling (Super, 1981).

Between 1935-40, the Minnesota Employment Stabilization Research Institute (MESRI), which developed psychological tests and methods for the assessment of the abilities and interests of the unemployed, studied the reeducation potential and problems faced by the unemployed and demonstrated methods of retraining and reeducation. Super (1983) finds the result of MESRI’s work to be the creation of what became known as occupational ability patterns (profiles) providing evidence of the feasibility of measuring many dimensions of individual differences and using these in vocational guidance and placement.

From the impetus of the Minnesota work came the development of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT; U.S. Department of Labor, 1940) which presented data concerning the working conditions, worker requirements, and employment opportunities in various occupations. The DOT, General Aptitude Test Battery (Dvorak, 1947), and the Occupational Outlook Handbook, (U.S. Department of Labor, 1949) provided badly needed tools to counselors who had been “handicapped by many (previous) information voids” (Srebalus et al., 1982). Available to defense contractors and the military at the end of the Depression era, these new tools provided for classification and assignment of men and women gearing up for the World War II effort.

As World War II ended, other organizations sprang up, evolved, and gained momentum. The pre-World War II Cooperative Test Service became the Educational Testing Service with a focus on testing and providing guidance for college admissions (Super, 1983). With similar objectives of testing and guidance, the American College Testing program provided the launching pad for John Holland in the development of his theory of occupational choice as a process of matching one’s self with a job situation (Holland, 1973). Career counselors were now able to rely on tests and measurement devices and a library of occupational information with both references for clients and technical manuals for counselor use (Srebalus et al., 1982) in their counseling efforts.

The early 1950s brought new and important contributors to the field of career development and counseling, such as Eli Ginzberg (Ginzberg et al.,1951), Anne Roe (1956), and Donald Super (1957). These theoreticians began to look at psychological variables, such as the process of human development, and how these variables affect career choice. Whereas prior to this time, vocational decisions had been considered a one-time decision made in adolescence, now emphasis shifted to viewing a vocational decision in the context of the person’s developmental history. These radical new ideas broke drastically from the traditional trait and factor theory.