Skills Confidence Inventory
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Skills Confidence Inventory

Skills Confidence Inventory

Last Updated

download

Purpose

The Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI), a companion to the Strong Interest Inventory, is designed to measure the confidence of individuals in their abilities to successfully perform various work-related tasks and activities.

Link to Instrument

Acronym SCI

Area of Assessment

General Health
Life Participation
Occupational Performance
Personality
Self-efficacy

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Computer

Cost

Not Free

Actual Cost

$13.95

Cost Description

Strong Interest Inventory and Skills Confidence Inventory Profile Administration – $13.95

Strong Interest Inventory and Skills Confidence Inventory Profile + Strong Interpretive Report – $20.95

Purchase test and score reports here: https://shop.themyersbriggs.com/en/strongproducts.aspx?pc=154&krs=rdcf2yu2cdn5yp1j5odn11mq

CDE Status

Not a CDE as of 12/12/2022

Populations

Non-Specific Patient Population

Key Descriptions

  • Originally published in 1996, revised in 2004.
  • 151 items
  • Examinees were requested to respond to each item based on their degree of confidence on a scale of 1 to 5. "1" indicates "No Confidence," whereas a "5" indicates "Complete Confidence."
  • The inventory is administered in combination with the Strong Interest Inventory.

Number of Items

151

Equipment Required

  • Test manual
  • Strong Interest Inventory (SII)

Time to Administer

45-55 minutes

Required Training

Reading an Article/Manual

Required Training Description

Manual is available for purchase: https://shop.themyersbriggs.com/en/strongitems.aspx?ic=8652-PDF

Should be administered by a trained clinician

Age Ranges

Adolescent

13 - 17

years

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 - 100

years

Instrument Reviewers

Marcus Weathers Jr., MS, CRC, LPC-IT and Lindsay Clark, PhD at University of Wisconsin, Madison

Kevin Fearn, MS, Shirley Ryan 香港六合彩即时开奖

ICF Domain

Participation
Activity

Measurement Domain

General Health
Activities of Daily Living
Emotion

Professional Association Recommendation

None

Considerations

This test is not to be taken as a standalone. This test is to be taken with the Strong Interest Inventory.

An expanded version of the SCI has been developed that assesses previously measured interest dimensions such as Writing, Mechanical Activities and Public Speaking, but also includes dimensions of recent changes in the nature of work or the culture of the workplace, such as Using Technology, Creative Production, and Cultural Sensitivity.  

Non-Specific Patient Population

back to Populations

Normative Data

College students: (Betz & Gwilliam, 2002; n = 399 [252 Caucasian, 111 African American, 13 Asian American, 5 Hispanic, 6 international, and 12 other (multiple category or no response) American college students]; mean age = 18.7 years)

 

SCI scale

Males (n=125)

Mean Score (SD)

Females (n=274)

Mean Score (SD)

Realistic

3.56 (0.8)

2.99 (0.7)

Investigative

3.54 (0.7)

3.2 (0.7)

Artistic

3.2 (0.7)

3.2 (0.8)

Social

3.7 (0.6)

3.8 (0.6)

Enterprising

3.6 (0.7)

3.3 (0.6)

Conventional

3.7 (0.6)

3.3 (0.7)

 

 College students (Chartrand et al., 2002; n = 11,823)

 

 

Race

 

 

N

Realistic subscale (mean scores (SD))

Investigative subscale (mean scores (SD))

Artistic subscale (mean scores (SD))

Social subscale (mean scores (SD))

Enterprising subscale (mean scores (SD))

Conventional subscale (mean scores (SD))

Asian students

1,069

30.2 (7.71)

30.9    (7.78)

30.9 (7.89)

35.5 (7.46)

32.1   (7.54)

32.9     (7.63)

Black students

1,078

28.7 (8.31)

28.6    (8.09)

31.2 (8.02)

38.3 (7.37)

33.8   (7.75)

32.8     (8.16)

Latino students

1,629

30.8 (8.78)

28.6    (8.66)

30.3 (8.84)

36.1 (8.85)

31.3   (8.34)

31.1     (8.30)

White students

7,647

31.3 (8.26)

30.3    (8.25)

30.9 (8.32)

36.6 (7.61)

32.1   (7.66)

31.3     (8.00)

Other students

   400

32.3 (8.95)

30.7    (9.14)

32.8 (8.64)

36.5 (8.78)

32.6   (8.72)

31.7     (8.77)

 

Non-college students (Chartrand et al. 2002; n = 6,462)

 

 

Race

 

 

N

Realistic subscale (mean scores (SD))

Investigative subscale (mean scores (SD))

Artistic subscale (mean scores (SD))

Social subscale (mean scores (SD))

Enterprising subscale (mean scores (SD))

Conventional subscale (mean scores (SD))

Asian students

   257

30.7 (8.84)

30.9    (8.89)

29.8 (8.48)

35.6 (7.65)

30.4   (8.11)

34.4     (7.93)

Black students

   534

30.0 (8.60)

28.8    (8.74)

30.8 (8.51)

37.9 (7.44)

33.2   (8.41)

3.6       (8.34)

Latino students

   301

31.9 (8.74)

29.7    (8.52)

30.5 (8.06)

36.7 (7.39)

31.5   (7.96)

32.5     (8.02)

White students

5,261

32.4 (8.70)

30.5    (8.54)

30.1 (8.32)

34.9 (7.47)

31.5   (8.02)

32.8     (8.16)

Other students

   109

31.9 (8.65)

28.4    (8.49)

32.2 (8.36)

36.2 (7.60)

32.9   (8.33)

32.5     (8.35)

Test/Retest Reliability

College Students: (Parsons & Betz, 1998; n = 113 (67 male ))

  • Excellent test-retest reliability: ICC scores ranging from .83 (Realistic confidence) to .87 (Social confidence) over a 3 week interval for the six General Confidence Themes (GCT).

Internal Consistency

Adults and College Students: (Betz et al., 1996; n = 1,853 (1,147 adults and 706 college students)) 

  • Excellent internal consistency for the six General Confidence Themes (Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.84 for both students and adults on the Enterprising scale to 0.87 for students/0.88 for adults on the Realistic scale)
College Students: (Betz & Wolfe, 2005; n=154 freshman students 18 years of age).
  • Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.83-0.94 across scales; mean alpha = 0.87)

College Students: (Betz & Gwilliam, 2002) 

  • Excellent internal consistency for males (n = 124; Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.81-0.87), females (n = 273; 0.80-0.86), African Americans (n = 110; 0.80-0.88), and European Americans (n = 274; 0.80-0.87)

 

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent validity:

College Students: (Chartrand et al., 2002; n = 26,288)

  • Males (n = 10,465)
    • Excellent correlations between the SCI General Confidence Themes and SII General Occupational Themes for:
      • Investigative scale (r = 0.66)
      • Realistic scalev (r = 0.64)
      • Artistic scale (r = 0.63)
    • Adequate correlations between the SCI General Confidence Themes and SII General Occupational Themes for:
      • Social scale (r = 0.53)
      • Conventional scale (r = 0.47)
      • Enterprising scale (r = 0.43)
  • females (n = 15,823)
    • Excellent correlations between the SCI General Confidence Themes and SII General Occupational Themes for:
      • Investigative scale (r = 0.65)
      • Artistic scale (r = 0.62)
      • Realistic scale (r = 0.58)
    • Adequate correlations between the SCI General Confidence Themes and SII General Occupational Themes for:
      • Conventional scale (r = 0.50)
      • Social scale (r = 0.46)
      • Enterprising scale (r = 0.41)

College Students: (Betz et al., 1999; n = 324 [206 female]; 24% minority or international students)

  • Males (n = 118)
    • Excellent correlations between the Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (TSOSS) and the Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI) for:
      • TSOSS-Quantitative with SCI-Investigative (r = 0.71)
      • TSOSS-Quantitative with SCI-Conventional (r = 0.70)
      • TSOSS-Physical with SCI-Realistic (r = 0.73)
      • TSOSS-Aesthetic with SCI-Artistic (r = 0.80)
    • Adequate correlations between the Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (TSOSS) and the Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI) for:
      • TSOSS-Verbal with SCI-Social (r = 0.50)
  • females (n = 206)
    • Excellent correlations between the Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (TSOSS) and the Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI) for:
      • TSOSS-Verbal with SCI-Social (r = 0.60)
      • TSOSS-Quantitative with SCI-Investigative (r = 0.71)
      • TSOSS-Quantitative with SCI-Conventional (r = 0.78)
      • TSOSS-Aesthetic with SCI-Artistic (r = 0.80)
    • Adequate correlations between the Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (TSOSS) and the Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI) for:

College Students: (Betz et al., 1999; n = 324 [206 female]; 24% minority or international students)

  • Males (n = 118)
    • Excellent correlations between the Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (TSOSS) and the Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI) for:
      • TSOSS-Quantitative with SCI-Investigative (r = 0.71)
      • TSOSS-Quantitative with SCI-Conventional (r = 0.70)
      • TSOSS-Physical with SCI-Realistic (r = 0.73)
      • TSOSS-Aesthetic with SCI-Artistic (r = 0.80)
    • Adequate correlations between the Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (TSOSS) and the Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI) for:
      • TSOSS-Verbal with SCI-Social (r = 0.50)
  • females (n = 206)
    • Excellent correlations between the Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (TSOSS) and the Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI) for:
      • TSOSS-Verbal with SCI-Social (r = 0.60)
      • TSOSS-Quantitative with SCI-Investigative (r = 0.71)
      • TSOSS-Quantitative with SCI-Conventional (r = 0.78)
      • TSOSS-Aesthetic with SCI-Artistic (r = 0.80)
    • Adequate correlations between the Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (TSOSS) and the Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI) for: TSOSS-Physical with SCI-Realistic (r = 0.54)

Construct Validity

Convergent Validity:

College Students: (Betz & Gwilliam, 2002;  n = 399 [252 Caucasian, 111 African American, 13 Asian American, 5 Hispanic, 6 international, and 12 other (multiple category or no response) American college students]; mean age = 18.7 years)

  • Excellent correlation with Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (r=0.74)
  • Adequate correlation with Self-Efficacy Rating Scale (r=0.45)

Discriminate Validity:

College Students: (Betz et al., 1999; n = 324 [206 female]; 24% minority or international students)

  • Males (n = 118)
    • Excellent correlations between the Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (TSOSS) and the Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI) for:
      • TSOSS-Quantitative with SCI-Enterprising (r = 0.14)
      • TSOSS-Aesthetic with SCI-Conventional (r = 0.22)
    • Adequate correlations between the Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (TSOSS) and the Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI) for:
      • TSOSS-Verbal with SCI-Conventional (r = 0.35)
      • TSOSS-Physical with SCI-Social (r = 0.39)
  • females (n = 206)
    • Excellent correlations between the Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (TSOSS) and the Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI) for:
      • TSOSS-Aesthetic with SCI-Conventional (r = 0.20)
    • Adequate correlations between the Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (TSOSS) and the Skills Confidence Inventory (SCI) for:
      • TSOSS-Verbal with SCI-Conventional (r = 0.41)
      • TSOSS-Quantitative with SCI-Enterprising (r = 0.37)
      • TSOSS-Physical with SCI-Social (r = 0.39)

 

Content Validity

Items were selected based on General Confidence Themes from the six Holland codes of personality type. Resultant items were then pretested and revised.

Bibliography

Betz, N. E., Borgen, F., Rottinghaus, P., Paulsen, A., Halper, C., & Harmon, L. (2003). The Expanded Skills Confidence Inventory: Measuring basic domains of vocational activity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 76-100. 

Betz, N. E., & Wolfe, J. B. (2005). Measuring Confidence for Basic Domains of Vocational Activity in High School Students. Journal of Career Assessment, 13(3), 251–270. 

Betz, N. E., & Gwilliam, L. R. (2002). The utility of measures of self-efficacy for the Holland themes in African American and European American college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 10(3), 283-300.

Betz, N., Schifano, R., & Kaplan, A. (1999). Relationships among measures of perceived self-efficacy with respect to basic domains of vocational activity. Journal of Career Assessment, 7(3), 213-226.

Betz, N. E., Harmon, L. W., & Borgen, F. H. (1996). The relationships of self-efficacy for the Holland themes to gender, occupational group membership, and vocational interests. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(1), 90. 

Chartrand, J. M., Borgen, F. H., Betz, N. E., Donnay, D. (2002) Using the Strong Interest Inventory and the Skills Confidence Inventory to Explain Career Goals. Journal of Career Assessment, 10(2), 169-189. h

Flores, L. Y., Spanierman, L. B., Armstrong, P. I., & Velez, A. D. (2006). Validity of the strong interest inventory and skills confidence inventory with Mexican American high school students. Journal of Career Assessment, 14(2), 183-202.

Gwilliam, L. R., & Betz, N. E. (2001). Validity of measures of math-and science-related self-efficacy for African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Career Assessment, 9(3), 261-281.

Parsons, E., & Betz, N. E. (1998). Test-retest reliability and validity studies of the skills confidence inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 6(1), 1-12. 

Robinson, C. H., & Betz, N. E. (2004). Test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of the expanded skills confidence inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 12(4), 407-422.

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Nov 5, 2024

Leicester Cough Questionna...

read more

updated Oct 15, 2024

Buss-Durkee Hostility Inve...

read more

updated Jul 31, 2024

PROMIS – Ability to Partic...

read more