The implementation of Holland Self-Directed Search to employed higher education graduates: A comparison between sighted adults and adults with visual impairments

Abstract

In general, the occupational choices of individuals with visual impairments do not appear to be significantly different from the ones of the sighted individuals, despite the narrowed occupational possibilities offered to them. This study aims to explore (a) the range of occupational possibilities that according to the Self-Directed Search (SDS) most closely resemble the personality types of adults with visual impairments and sighted adults, (b) the differences between the occupational possibilities suggested by the SDS among adults with visual impairments and sighted adults, and (c) the differences between the current occupational choices and the occupational possibilities according to the SDS of adults with visual impairments and sighted adults, and the comparison among them. The sample consisted of 44 adults with visual impairments and 44 sighted adults, aged 24 to 44 years. All participants were higher education graduates and occupationally active. The occupational possibilities suggested by the SDS show the clear inclination of people with visual impairment toward social occupations. On the contrary, the SDS shows the inclination of the sighted adults toward the enterprising and the investigative occupations. The results of the statistical analysis showed that there are no differences between the two groups (visually impaired and sighted) in terms of the Iachan index – an index that determines the congruence between two SDS codes, representing the current occupations and the occupations proposed by the SDS application. The results could be practically implemented for the expansion of individuals with visual impairment occupational choices based on their occupational possibilities.

Keywords

Adults higher education graduates Holland occupational choices occupational possibilities visual impairments

Introduction

Individuals with disabilities are still facing discriminations in the labor market (Baldwin & Choe, 2014; Chan et al., 2005; Gustafsson et al., 2014; Harris et al., 2013; Kobus-Ostrowska & Papakonstantinou, 2020; Myers & Sai, 2015), such as lower employment rates (Houtenville et al., 2016), less vocational choices (Maroto & Pettinicchio, 2014; Taylor & Walter, 2003), lower pay, lower levels of participation in decisions, and higher levels of supervision (Schur et al., 2009). Employment of persons with disabilities is often met by employers as something not common and certainly different from the employment of those with no disabilities (Gustafsson et al., 2014). For individuals with visual impairments, the same situation applies, as they have lower employment rates (Shaw et al., 2007) and are less likely to be employed in a position commensurate with their skills and qualifications (Leonard, 2002), while they are paid less than other employees and are at a disadvantage with respect to their career advancement (Barnes, 1991; La Grow & Daye, 2005; Roy et al., 1996).

A glance at the occupational choices of people with disabilities reveals that in general, people with impairments do not appear to have significantly different occupational preferences to the general population except for their preference for government jobs over the private sector, which may be explained by their expectations of more equal behaviors from their government agencies and more stable work conditions (Ali et al., 2011). Within this rather restricted framework, it is questionable whether people with disabilities have a wide range of occupational alternatives and whether the occupational choices they make are based on their interests and skills. Researches show that the majority work in the service sector, such as a photography studio, a grocery store, a gift shop, or a computer store (Wehbi & El-Lahib, 2007), and in production, material moving occupations, and transportation (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016); or hold low-skilled jobs, such as factory workers, assistants, and warehouse staff (Gustafsson et al., 2014), while self-employment also appears to be an important occupational choice for them (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016; Wehbi & El-Lahib, 2007), especially within Europe (Pagán, 2009).

For individuals with visual impairments, the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) highlights that there are almost no limits on the jobs that people with visual impairments can perform with “tremendous” possibilities (AFB, 2020a, 2020b). The European Blind Union (EBU) on its Job Website also provides information about a huge range of jobs (EBU, 2020). However, despite the above mentioned, stereotypes, lack of information, fears, and concerns still continue to form the views regarding the occupational choices for people with visual impairments (Papakonstantinou, 2018; Papakonstantinou & Papadopoulos, 2017, 2019), leading to more narrow occupational choices and more obstacles to their vocational integration (La Grow & Daye, 2005; Leonard, 2002; Sacks et al., 1998; Shaw et al., 2007).

A prevailing theory focusing on occupational choices and particularly on the association between personality and occupational choice is the theory of Holland (Borgen, 1991; Levinson et al., 2002; Reardon & Lenz, 1999; Seligman, 1994). Holland created six types of work environments and proportionally six personality types, the realistic, the investigative, the artistic, the social, the enterprising, and the conventional, attributed with the acronym RIASEC (Holland, 1997). Within this framework, Holland developed the Self-Directed Search (SDS) Questionnaire (Holland, 1994). The SDS is designed for use by both adolescents and adults (Holland, 1997), and can also be an especially useful business tool (Daniels, 1994) for people with work experience who want to explore their future employment options (Reardon & Lenz, 1999). The SDS has been implemented in individuals with disabilities and particularly in adolescents with hearing impairment (Furlonger, 1998) and visual impairment (Xiromeriti & Makris, 2000), as well as in adults with visual impairment (Papakonstantinou, 2019; Winer et al., 1987).

In the present study, the SDS is implemented to individuals with visual impairments and to sighted individuals to explore their occupational possibilities and their current occupational choices, as well as to compare them. More specifically, the aims of the study are to explore (a) the range of occupational possibilities that according to the SDS most closely resemble the personality types of adults with visual impairments and sighted adults, (b) the differences between the occupational possibilities suggested by the SDS among adults with visual impairments and sighted adults, (c) the differences between the current occupational choices and the occupational possibilities according to the SDS of adults with visual impairments and sighted adults, and (d) the differences between the current occupational choices and the occupational possibilities according to the SDS among adults with visual impairments and sighted adults.

Method

Participants

In total, 44 adults with visual impairments and 44 sighted adults participated in this study. All participants were occupationally active and worked full-time (does not include part-time employees and volunteers). These two groups were matched in terms of age (based on the average age of each group), gender, and educational level (all were higher education graduates). The participants with visual impairments were members of the Panhellenic Association of the Blind in Greece. At first, we contacted by phone a convenience sample of 50 adults with visual impairments, to ask them to participate in the study. From this group, 44 (23 men and 21 women), aged 24 to 44 years (Μ = 33.35, SD = 4.74), individuals with visual impairments stated that they wanted to participate. The majority of participants, representing 27 (61.4%) of the participants, were people with blindness or profound visual impairments and 17 (38.6%) were individuals with low vision (can read magnified text using their residual vision). Twenty-seven of the participants used Braille or screen-reading software for reading, while the remaining 17 used low-vision aids (lenses, enlarged print, etc.). With regard to the age of onset of visual impairments, it is noted that for 27 of the participants, vision loss occurred congenitally; for 5 of the participants, it showed up to the age of 10; for 9 of the participants, it showed up to the age of 20; and for the remaining 3, the loss occurred at an older age. The group of sighted adults consisted of 23 males and 21 females, aged from 24 to 44 years old (M = 33.12, SD = 5.83).

Procedures – instruments

The research instrument used in the study is the SDS Questionnaire of Holland, Form R, which is the original form of the SDS and can be used by adults (Holland, 1994; Holland et al., 1994). The Braille Edition of the SDS Form R (Holland, 1993) was not used in the research because only 20 of the participants were Braille users. The SDS has many advantages over other measurement tools, with the main one being the fact that it can be completed by the interested person without the essential contribution of an expert, within only 30 to 45 min (Osborn, 2002).

Following the completion of the SDS, it results in a three-letter summary code, known as the “Holland code” (Helwig & Myrin, 1997; Holland, 1994; Holland et al., 1997). The letters with the three highest numbers indicate the summary code. In particular, the first letter of the code represents the highest score and therefore the prevailing type of RIASEC, and the second and the third letters correspond to the second and third highest score and to the last two highest score types of RIASEC, respectively (Armstrong et al., 2004; Holland, 1994; Holland et al., 1997).

The participants with visual impairments completed the questionnaire with an individual in-person interview in the place of their choice. The sighted participants completed the questionnaire by the phone due to the preference stated of the majority of them. All the participants provided before the beginning of the procedure their consent according to the World Medical Association (2010). The researchers were the persons administering the SDS for the participants with visual impairments in-person and for the sighted participants by the phone, and calculating the three-letter summary code for all the participants after its completion. The participants were also asked additional questions concerning their demographic characteristics, specifically their gender, age, vision status, and current occupational position. The duration of the completion of each questionnaire by the participants ranged from 25 to 50 min.

Results

To explore the range of occupational possibilities that according to the SDS most closely resemble the personality types of the participants, and the scores for each of the six types (R, I, A, S, E, and C), we calculated for each participant the Holland summary code and the occupational category that this code indicates. From the summary codes of the participants with visual impairments (see Table 1), it emerges that the vast majority of codes relate to social occupations (n = 25, 56.8%), followed by conventional (n = 6, 13.6%), investigative (n = 4, 9.1%), artistic (n = 3, 6.8%), enterprising (n = 3, 6.8%), and realistic ones (n = 3, 6.8%).

Table 1.

Holland codes and respective occupational categories (RIASEC: R = Realistic, I = Investigative, A = Artistic, S = Social, E = Enterprising, C = Conventional) of participants with visual impairments.

Categories	Participants	Holland codes
Social	25	SAC (5), SAI (5), SEA (4), SIA (4), SEC (2), SCE (2), SIE (1), SC[AE] (1), SEI (1)
Conventional	6	CES (2), CSI (1), CAS (1), CE[RI] (1), CSE (1)
Investigative	4	ICS (2), IAS (1), ISE (1)
Artistic	3	AES (1), ASE (2)
Enterprising	3	ECI (1), ESA (1), EIS (1)
Realistic	3	RCE (1), REA (1), RSA (1)

The numbers in parentheses represent the frequency of every three-letter code.

From the summary codes of the sighted participants (see Table 2), it emerges that the vast majority of codes relate to enterprising occupations (n = 12, 27.3%), followed by investigative (n = 11, 25%), social (n = 8, 18.2%), conventional (n = 6, 13.6%), artistic (n = 4, 9.1%), and realistic ones (n = 3, 6.8%).

Table 2.

Holland codes and respective occupational categories (RIASEC: R = Realistic, I = Investigative, A = Artistic, S = Social, E = Enterprising, C = Conventional) of sighted participants.

Categories	Participants	Holland codes
Enterprising	12	ESC (4), ECA (2), ECI (1), ESA (1), EAR (1), ECS (1), ERC (1), ESI (1)
Investigative	11	ICS (2), IEC (2), IES (1), I[SE]R (1), IE[RS] (1), IRA (1), IRE (1), IS[RA] (1), ISA (1)
Social	8	SAI (2), SE[AC] (1), SIA (1), SEC (1), SC[IE] (1), SIE (1), S[AC]R (1)
Conventional	6	CES (1), CSE (1), CIE (1), CEI (1), CSA (1), CR[IE] (1)
Artistic	4	AES (1), ARS (1), ASR (1), AS[RC] (1)
Realistic	3	RES (1), RIC (1), RE[SC] (1)

The numbers in parentheses represent the frequency of every three-letter code.

Beyond the study of the summary codes, we explored whether there are significant differences between the participants with visual impairments and the sighted participants concerning the scores of the participants for every one of the six types (R, I, A, S, E, and C).

The implementation of the t-test revealed significant differences between the two groups of participants. In particular, there are significant differences between adults with visual impairments and sighted adults regarding the social (t = 5.155, df = 86, p < .01), artistic (t = 4.330, df = 86, p < .01), and investigative (t = 2.469, df = 86, p < .05) types. Moreover, adults with visual impairments scored higher than sighted adults in all six types (Table 3).

Table 3.

Means of summary scale scores for R, I, A, S, E, and C.

The acronym RIASEC	Adults with visual impairments		Sighted adults
	M	SD	M	SD
R	19.91	9.57	19.20	10.45
I	28.80*	9.17	22.95*	12.73
A	29.82*	10.30	20.30*	10.33
S	38.23*	8.40	28.30*	9.63
E	29.00	9.57	27.20	10.71
C	29.41	8.74	25.50	12.30

Significant differences between groups.

To examine the differences between the current occupational choices of the participants with visual impairments and the occupational possibilities suggested by the SDS, the current occupational choices of the participants were matched (according to “The Occupations Finder” of Holland) with their three-letter Holland codes and with the corresponding occupational category (realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and conventional). Research findings reveal that the majority of the participants with visual impairments (n = 25, 56.8%) are employed in conventional occupations, 15 (34.1%) of the participants in social occupations, 3 (6.8%) in enterprising occupations, and the remaining one (2.3%) in artistic occupations. The complete lack of realistic and investigative occupations as an occupational choice is noted. Findings are presented in Table 4. On the contrary, findings reveal that the majority of the sighted participants (n = 13, 29.6%) are employed in social occupations, 11 (25%) of the participants in investigative occupations, 9 (20.5%) in enterprising occupations, 8 (18.2%) in conventional occupations, 2 (4.5%) in artistic occupations, and the remaining one (2.3%) in realistic occupation (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Current occupational choices of the participants (RIASEC: R = Realistic, I = Investigative, A = Artistic, S = Social, E = Enterprising, C = Conventional).

Sighted participants			Participants with visual impairments
Categories	Participants	Holland Codes	Categories	Participants	Holland Codes
S	13(29.6%)	SAE (6), SEA (2), SEC (2), SER (2), SRC (1)	C	25(56.8%)	CSE (19), CSR (5), CES (1)
I	11(25%)	IS[RE] (4), IAR (2), IR[SE] (1), IES (1), IRC (1), IRS (1), ISE (1)	S	15(34.1%)	SEC (6), SCE (3), SAE (3), SIR (1), SIA (1), SER (1)
E	9(20.5%)	ESA (5), EAS (1), EIS (1), ES[AI] (1), ESC (1)	E	3(6.8%)	ESI (1), ESA (1), ESR (1)
C	8(18.2%)	CRS (6), CSE (1), CSI (1)	A	1(2.3%)	ASC (1)
A	2(4.5%)	AIS (1), ARI (1)
R	1(2.3%)	RIE (1)

The numbers in parentheses represent the frequency of every three-letter code.

The results of the comparison between the current occupational choices of the participants and the occupational possibilities suggested by the SDS are presented in Table 5. Comparing the percentages between the current occupational choices and the occupational possibilities suggested by the SDS, it appears that people with visual impairments follow conventional occupations approximately 43% (56.8% current occupational choices minus 13.6% occupations suggested by the SDS) higher than those suggested by the SDS. On the contrary, it seems that sighted individuals follow social and conventional occupations, at about 11% (18.2% current occupational choices minus 13.6% occupations suggested by the SDS) and 5% (29.6% current occupational choices minus 18.2% occupations suggested by the SDS), respectively, higher than the SDS suggested.

Table 5.

Comparison between the current occupational choices of the participants and the occupations suggested by the SDS.

Categories	Individuals with visual impairments		Sighted individuals
Categories	Current	SDS	Current	SDS
Conventional	25(56.8%)	6(13.6%)	8(18.2%)	6(13.6%)
Social	15(34.1%)	25(56.8%)	13(29.6%)	8(18.2%)
Enterprising	3(6.8%)	3(6.8%)	9(20.5%)	12(27.3%)
Artistic	1(2.3%)	3(6.8%)	2(4.5%)	4(9.1%)
Realistic	0	3(6.8%)	1(2.3%)	3(6.8%)
Investigative	0	4(9.1%)	11(25%)	11(25%)

SDS = Self-Directed Search.

Moreover, the congruence using the Iachan index (Iachan, 1984) was calculated. “Congruence (agreement) refers to the amount of agreement or compatibility between any two Holland codes” (Holland et al., 1994, p. 16). “Iachan index takes into account three code letters and their relative elevation or importance in each pair of codes. Certain pairings are given weights” (Holland et al., 1994, p. 16). In the present study was calculated the Iachan index for each participant, with the aim of examining the level of congruence between the Holland summary code of participants’ current occupations and the Holland summary code obtained from the SDS. The Iachan index mean was calculated as being equal to 16.14 (SD = 8.48) and 13.89 (SD = 8.82) for participants with visual impairments and sighted participants, respectively. The implementation of the t-test did not show significant differences between the two groups regarding the Iachan index. Thus, the differences between the current occupations and those suggested by the SDS are similar for the individuals with and without visual impairments.

Discussion

This study explored the occupational possibilities of adults with visual impairments and sighted adults, indicated by the SDS Questionnaire of Holland as more closely resemblance to their personality, as well as the differences between the occupational possibilities among them. Moreover, the differences between the participants’ current occupational choices and the occupational possibilities suggested by the SDS were examined.

Concerning the participants with visual impairments, the findings suggest that the social occupations take the lead. These findings are consistent with the findings of the study of Papakonstantinou (2019) and of Winer et al. (1987) where the social type was the prevailing type among adults with visual impairments. Moreover, the findings of the present study are not consistent with the findings of the study contacted by Xiromeriti and Makris (2000). Specifically, in the research of Xiromeriti and Makris (2000) in which the SDS Questionnaire was applied to a sample of adolescents with visual impairments, artistic occupations took the lead followed by social occupations. The difference regarding the prevailing occupational type of SDS with the corresponding type of the present study is likely due to the different age ranges of the two samples and the fact that the present research was solely addressed to integrated employed people, so their choices were influenced by maturity, implying their older age, their different phase of life, and their active occupational life.

Comparing the Holland summary codes of the two groups and the occupational category that these codes indicate emerges that the vast majority (56.8%) of the codes of people with visual impairments relate to social occupations (Table 1), while in each of the other categories, there is a much smaller percentage of participants (από 13.6%, έως 6.8%). On the contrary, the distribution of sighted adults in occupational categories does not show such large disparities in terms of the number of participants classified in each (Table 2). Most sighted adults relate to enterprising (27.3%) or investigative (25%) occupations, while social occupations are their third preference (18.2%). In the other categories (conventional, artistic, realistic), there is a relative balance between the two groups. However, comparing participants’ scores for each of the six types reveals that adults with visual impairments scored higher than sighted adults in all six types, and for three (social, artistic, and investigative) of the six types, differences were statistically significant. The higher scores of adults with visual impairments could be attributed to the way the research was conducted. The participants with visual impairments completed SDS with an individual in-person interview and it is possible that they might have overestimated their competencies and skills to make an impression. However, the same does not apply to the sighted participants, as they completed the questionnaire by phone, which is a more impersonal means of communication.

The comparison between the current occupational choices of participants with visual impairments and the occupational possibilities suggested by the SDS (see Table 5) reveals a significant difference with regard to the conventional occupations. More than half of participants with visual impairments (25 out of 44) are employed in occupations in the conventional category. This large discrepancy is due to the fact that a large number of participants with visual impairment (n = 19) work as phone operators. This is not due to the incorrect recruitment of the sample, as the Panhellenic Association of the Blind, from which the participants were recruited, is the largest blind association in the country and a trade union body, so its members are not limited to specific professions. The fact that most of the participants in this research are phone operators is due to the country’s legislative framework that encourages people with visual impairments to choose this profession, as it obliges businesses to employ a large number of blind individuals in the positions of phone operators.

Another difference that emerges from the comparison between the current occupational choices of participants with visual impairments and the occupational possibilities suggested by the SDS is the one that regards the social occupations. While only one out of three participants follows social occupations, social occupations are rated as the highest (56.8%) by the SDS assessment. Also, investigative and realistic occupational categories are not included in the current occupational choices of the participants, despite the fact that each of these categories is suggested by the SDS assessment with a percentage of 9.1% and 6.8%, respectively.

The results of the statistical analysis showed that there are no differences between the two groups (visually impaired and sighted) in terms of the Iachan index – an index that determines the congruence between two SDS codes. This practically means that in the group of the sighted participants, similar differences emerged between the current occupations and those proposed by the application of SDS. The reasons leading to the differences between the current occupations and the occupations proposed by the SDS application may be various and different for each group of participants. The present study did not aim to answer this research question. A future study that will additionally use SDS assessment in conjunction with an interview could clarify the factors that lead to this difference.

Individuals with visual impairments are often led into positions disproportionate to their skills and abilities (Leonard, 2002), which differs from the results of the SDS. The obstacles could be attributed to several reasons, like the lack of career mentoring for college graduates with visual impairments, which proved to be particularly helpful in their smooth vocational integration (Antonelli et al., 2018), and to the challenges associated with higher education for individuals with visual impairments, as inaccessible physical environments and educational programs (Odame et al., 2019). The obstacles could also be due but to the misinterpreted concept of impairment (Siperstein et al., 2006), to the existence of negative social stereotypes (Gustafsson et al., 2014; Hunt & Hunt, 2004), and to the less occupational choices offered to them (Maroto & Pettinicchio, 2014; Taylor & Walter, 2003) as a result of the ongoing labor market discriminations toward them (Baldwin & Choe, 2014; Gustafsson et al., 2014; Houtenville et al., 2016).

The limitations of this study may lie in the completion of the questionnaire by two different ways, by phone for the sighted participants and in-person for the participants with visual impairments. The personal contact during the in-person interviews could have an impact on the perceived honest feedback, as the participants with visual impairments might have wanted to give a more positive feedback, resulting in an unrealistic one. It may also be a limitation of the present study that many of the participants were phone operators in the profession. This is likely to weaken the conclusions regarding the differences between the current occupational choices of participants and those suggested by Holland. In addition, the small sample size is a limitation of this study. Evaluation of SDS results with larger samples would be needed to ensure the study findings.

The results of Holland’s questionnaire show the suitable occupations for individuals with visual impairments according to their own appraisal of their preferences, skills, and competencies. The findings of this study underscore the competitive skills and competencies of people with visual impairments in various fields and should encourage individuals with visual impairments by pointing out that the successful vocational integration is achievable. Moreover, the results of the comparison between the current occupational choices of people with visual impairments and the occupational possibilities suggested by the SDS can contribute to the combat of the reasons that often lead people with visual impairments to occupations disproportionate to their skills and abilities. For example, the research findings may enable all interested parties to consolidate the understanding that the occupation of phone operator may be a popular choice among the majority of individuals with visual impairments at least in Greece, but this does not constitute a one-way street neither for the individuals with visual impairments nor for the state and the employers. Rehabilitation specialists and vocational counselors could benefit from being aware of the actual preferences, skills, and competencies of people with visual impairments; their final occupational choices; and the possible congruence among them. Specialists and counselors should encourage adults with visual impairments in making their occupational choices in ways that can realize Holland’s theory (Holland, 1996).

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Doxa Papakonstantinou

Konstantinos Papadopoulos

References

Ali

Schur

Blanck

(2011). What types of jobs do people with disabilities want? Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(2), 199–210.

American Foundation for the Blind. (2020a). No Limits Employment. https://www.afb.org/research-and-initiatives/employment

American Foundation for the Blind. (2020b). Employment Opportunities. https://www.afb.org/about-afb/leadership-and-staff/careers-afb

Antonelli

Steverson

O’Mally

(2018). College graduates with visual impairments: A report on seeking and finding employment. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 112(1), 33–45.

Armstrong

P. I.

Donnay

D. A. C.

Smith

T. J.

Rounds

(2004). The strong ring: A basic interest model of occupational structure. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(3), 299–313.

Baldwin

M. L.

Choe

(2014). Wage discrimination against workers with sensory disabilities. Industrial Relations, 53(1), 101–124.

Barnes

(1991). Disabled people in Britain and discrimination: A case for anti-discrimination legislation. C. Hurst & Co. in Association With the British Council of Organizations of Disabled People.

Borgen

F. H.

(1991). Megatrends and milestones in vocational behavior: A 20-year counseling psychology retrospective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39(3), 263–290.

Chan

McMahon

B. T.

Cheing

Rosenthal

D. A.

Bezyak

(2005). Drivers of workplace discrimination against people with disabilities: The utility of attribution theory. Work: Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 25(1), 77–88.

10.

Daniels

M. H.

(1994). A review of the Self-Directed Search. In Kapes

J. T.

Mastie

M. M.

Whitfield

E. A.

(Eds.), A counselor’s guide to career assessment instruments (3rd ed., pp. 208–212). National Career Development Association.

11.

European Blind Union. (2020). Publications and Resources- Employment and Rehabilitation. http://www.euroblind.org/publications-and-resources/guidelines#_Employment

12.

Furlonger

(1998). An investigation of the career development of high school adolescents with hearing impairments in New Zealand. American Annals of the Deaf, 143(3), 268–276.

13.

Gustafsson

Peralta

J. P.

Danermark

(2014). The employer’s perspective: Employment of people with disabilities in wage subsidized employments. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 16(3), 249–266.

14.

Harris

S. P.

Owen

Jones

Caldwell

(2013). Does workfare policy in the United States promote the rights of people with disabilities? Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 39(1), 61–73.

15.

Helwig

A. A.

Myrin

M. D.

(1997). Ten-year stability of Holland Codes within one family. Career Development Quarterly, 46(1), 62–71.

16.

Holland

J. L.

(1993). Self-Directed Search Form R: Braille edition. Psychological Assessment Resources.

17.

Holland

J. L.

(1994). Self-Directed Search Form R (4th ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources.

18.

Holland

J. L.

(1996). Exploring careers with a typology: What we have learned and some new directions. American Psychologist, 51(4), 397–406.

19.

Holland

J. L.

(1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources.

20.

Holland

J. L.

Fritzsche

B. A.

Powell

A. B.

(1994). The Self-Directed Search technical manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

21.

Holland

J. L.

Fritzsche

B. A.

Powell

A. B.

(1997). The Self-Directed Search technical manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

22.

Holland

J. L.

Powell

A. B.

Fritzsche

B. A.

(1994). The Self-Directed Search professional user’s guide. Psychological Assessment Resources.

23.

Houtenville

A. J.

Brucker

D. L.

Lauer

E. A.

(2016). Annual compendium of disability statistics, 2015. Institute on Disabilities, University of New Hampshire.

24.

Hunt

C. S.

Hunt

(2004). Changing attitudes toward people with disabilities: Experimenting with an educational intervention. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(2), 266–280.

25.

Iachan

(1984). A measure of agreement for use with the Holland classification system. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 24(2), 133–141.

26.

Kobus-Ostrowska

Papakonstantinou

(2020). Labor market integration of people with disabilities according to Polish and Greek Legislation. Comparative Economic Research “Central and Eastern Europe,” 23(1), 111–126.

27.

La Grow

S. J.

Daye

. (2005). Barriers to employment identified by blind and vision impaired persons in New Zealand. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 26, 173–185.

28.

Leonard

(2002). Predictors of job-seeking behavior among persons with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 96(9), 635–644.

29.

Levinson

E. M.

Zeman

H. L.

Ohler

D. L.

(2002). A critical evaluation of the web-based version of the career key. Career Development Quarterly, 51(1), 26–35.

30.

Maroto

Pettinicchio

(2014). Disability, structural inequality, and work: The influence of occupational segregation on earnings for people with different disabilities. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 38, 76–92.

31.

Myers

Sai

(2015). The effects of disability on earnings in China and the United States. Review of Disability Studies, 9(4), 39–61.

32.

Odame

Opoku

M. P.

Nketsia

Nanor

(2019). University experiences of graduates with visual impairments in Ghana. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2019.1681375

33.

Osborn

D. S.

(2002). Test review: Self-Directed Search. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 46(1), 56–58.

34.

Pagán

(2009). Self-employment among people with disabilities: Evidence for Europe. Disability and Society, 24(2), 217–229.

35.

Papakonstantinou

(2018). Why should employers be interested in hiring people with mental illness? A review for occupational therapists. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 49(2), 217–226.

36.

Papakonstantinou

(2019). Relationships between individual characteristics and occupational possibilities for young adults with visual impairments. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 38, 137–150.

37.

Papakonstantinou

Papadopoulos

. (2017). The impact of information on employers’ attitudes towards employees with visual impairments. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 47, 99–107.

38.

Papakonstantinou

Papadopoulos

(2019). Employers’ attitudes toward hiring individuals with visual impairments. Disability and Rehabilitation, 42, 798–805.

39.

Reardon

R. C.

Lenz

J. G.

(1999). Holland’s theory and career assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55(1), 102–113.

40.

Roy

A. W. M.

Dimigen

Taylor

(1996). Types of supportive intervention sought by visually impaired graduates to assist their transition from education to employment. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 14(2), 66–70.

41.

Sacks

S. Z.

Wolffe

K. E.

Tierney

(1998). Lifestyles of students with visual impairments: Preliminary studies of social networks. Exceptional Children, 64(4), 463–478.

42.

Schur

Kruse

Blasi

Blanck

(2009). Is disability disabling in all workplaces? Workplace disparities and corporate culture. Industrial Relations, 48(3), 381–410.

43.

Seligman

(1994). Developmental career counseling and assessment (2nd ed.). SAGE.

44.

Shaw

Gold

Wolffe

(2007). Employment-related experiences of youths who are visually impaired: How are these youths faring? Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 101(1), 7–21.

45.

Siperstein

G. N.

Romano

Mohler

Parker

(2006). A national survey of consumer attitudes towards companies that hire people with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 24(1), 3–9.

46.

Taylor

K. E.

Walter

(2003). Occupation choices of adults with and without symptoms of dyslexia. Dyslexia, 9(3), 177–185.

47.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016, June). Persons with a disability: Labor force characteristics 2015, news release. Economic News Release. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.htm

48.

Wehbi

El-Lahib

(2007). The employment situation of people with disabilities in Lebanon: Challenges and opportunities. Disability and Society, 22(4), 371–382.

49.

Winer

J. L.

White

H. E.

Smith

(1987). Using Self-Directed Search with blind adults. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 81(1), 26–28.

50.

World Medical Association. (2010). WMA declaration of Helsinki–Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/

51.

Xiromeriti

Makris

(2000). Adjustment of the skills and interests questionnaire of Holland for adolescents with visual impairments. http://1kesyp-v.thess.sch.gr/neaamea/ameaa/yphresies/AMEAProblimataOrasis.pdf (in Greek).