VOCATIONAL VALUES AND EMPLOYMENT OUTCOMES OF THE DISADVANTAGED |
| |
| Authors: | James A. Bitter Charles C. Ray Joseph T. Kunce Dale L. Lawver Douglas E. Miller |
| |
| Affiliation: | James A. Bitter is Director of the Regional Rehabilitation Research Institute and Associate Professor of Special Education at the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley. Charles C. Ray is an Employment Service Counselor III at the Missouri Division of Employment Security in Columbia. Joseph T. Kunce is Director of the Regional Rehabilitation Research Institute and Professor of Education at the University of Missouri in Columbia. Dale L. Lawver and Douglas E. Miller are Research Assistants at the Regional Rehabilitation Research Institute at the University of Missouri. This study was a collaborative investigation of the Missouri Division of Employment Security, Columbia Office, and the Regional Rehabilitation Research Institutes at the University of Missouri and the University of Northern Colorado. It was supported in part by grants RF-413, 15-P-55245/6, and 15-P-55254/8 from the Social and Rehabilitation Service, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D.C. 20201. The writers are grateful to Dean L. Smith, Manager of the Columbia, Missouri, Division of Employment Security Office, for his support. |
| |
| Abstract: | There is conflicting opinion regarding the vocational values of disadvantaged persons. This study was conducted to examine vocational values and employment outcomes of 21 disadvantaged and 20 not-disadvantaged clients previously served by a U.S. Employment Service office. The Minnesota Importance Questionnaire (MIQ) was used to measure vocational values, and two measures of disadvantagement were compared with employment outcome. Only 2 of the 20 MIQ scales revealed significant differences, suggesting that there is a need to consider the individual's unique values rather than presume stereotyped needs. The two measures of disadvantagement correlated significantly with employment status at follow-up. The finding that only 43 percent of the disadvantaged were employed, in contrast to 90 percent of the not-disadvantaged, indicates a greater need for specialized services for disadvantaged clients. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
