Values Inventory

Abstract

The Values Inventory (also historically grounded in and adapted from the Work Values Inventory tradition pioneered by Donald E. Super and subsequent vocational counseling researchers) is a standardized self-reflective assessment instrument designed to measure, categorize, and prioritize the fundamental occupational and personal values that guide career choice, vocational satisfaction, and professional decision-making. Values represent enduring beliefs concerning desirable end-states or modes of conduct that transcend specific situations and structure human motivation. In the contemporary 32-item operationalization preserved in vocational development and university career counseling protocols (such as the University of Chicago Career Advancement and Office of Special Programs curricula), the instrument assesses 32 distinct occupational value dimensions, including altruistic orientations (e.g., Help society, Help others), structural and environmental preferences (e.g., Fast Pace, Stability, Security, Precision Work), interpersonal modalities (e.g., Public contact, Work with others, Work alone, Friendships), motivational drivers (e.g., Financial Gain, Recognition, Competition, Power and authority, Influence people), and cognitive-creative aspirations (e.g., Knowledge, Work mastery, Artistic creativity, General creativity, Intellectual status).

The inventory employs a dual-stage ipsative-normative administrative process: respondents first evaluate each of the 32 discrete value descriptors on a three-point categorical rating format consisting of HIGH VALUE, VALUE, and LOW VALUE. Subsequently, respondents perform an ipsative forced-choice prioritization exercise by extracting and ranking their top 6 core values from those categorized as high priority. Psychometric evaluations across multiple evolutionary iterations of the work values paradigm demonstrate moderate to high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α typically ranging from .68 to .88 across overarching domain clusters) and robust test-retest reliability over intervals ranging from two weeks to several months (stability coefficients ranging from r = .72 to .86). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses historically isolate a hierarchical framework composed of intrinsic, extrinsic, social/relational, and prestige/power latent constructs. This article provides a comprehensive psychometric review of the Values Inventory, tracing its theoretical origins in person-environment fit theory, structural validity, criterion-related utility, scoring protocols, and applied implementations in vocational guidance and organizational psychology.

Keywords

Values Inventory, Work Values Inventory, Donald Super, vocational psychology, person-environment fit, intrinsic values, extrinsic values, career counseling, work motivation, psychometrics

Authors

The conceptual foundation of structured work values assessment originated primarily with Donald E. Super, Ph.D. (1910–1994), widely regarded as one of the preeminent developmental and vocational psychologists of the twentieth century. Super served as Professor of Psychology and Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, where he directed pioneering longitudinal inquiries into occupational development, most notably the Career Pattern Study inaugurated in 1951. His formulation of the original Work Values Inventory (WVI; Super, 1970) provided the foundational psychometric template from which subsequent applied vocational worksheets, institutional adaptations, and counseling inventories were derived.

Subsequent revisions and programmatic adaptations have been carried out by numerous vocational scholars and institutional counseling bodies. The modernized 32-value experiential rubric represented in academic career guidance systems was adapted and distributed through higher education career development centers, notably the University of Chicago Office of Special Programs and College Programming (OSP-CP) and related career advancement initiatives. These adaptations were designed to translate complex empirical psychometric scales into functional, highly interpretable counseling tools for undergraduate, graduate, and professional populations navigating career transitions.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Values Inventory is to elucidate the underlying value structures that govern an individual's career decision-making, professional alignment, and workplace engagement. While occupational interest inventories—such as those based on John L. Holland's RIASEC typology—measure the specific activities and tasks an individual prefers to execute, and aptitude batteries measure capability or performance capacity, values inventories measure why an individual works and what conditions must be satisfied for sustained job satisfaction, psychological well-being, and vocational tenure. In vocational psychology, values function as the vital bridge between individual identity and organizational culture.

From an applied clinical and career counseling perspective, the Values Inventory serves several strategic diagnostic and therapeutic objectives:

• Clarification of Latent Vocational Needs: Clients frequently experience vocational dysphoria or burnout without understanding the precise etiology of their distress. The inventory systematically deconstructs job attributes into 32 quantifiable dimensions, permitting clients to isolate whether dissatisfaction stems from ethical incongruence (e.g., deficit in Moral Fulfillment), structural friction (e.g., conflict between Fast Pace and Stability), or interpersonal isolation (e.g., working alone when Public contact is prized).
• Facilitation of Career Transitions: During mid-career pivots or post-secondary educational planning, individuals are often overwhelmed by the breadth of employment options. By narrowing occupational priorities to the top 6 non-negotiable core values, the instrument creates a rigorous filtering heuristic that clients can apply against specific job descriptions, industry sectors, and workplace cultures.
• Resolution of Value Conflicts: Individuals frequently endorse competing values simultaneously (for example, desiring both extreme Adventure/risk-taking and guaranteed economic Security, or both autonomous Independence and highly visible Supervision/power). The two-step evaluation process forces conscious confrontation and prioritization of these psychological trade-offs.
• Organizational and Talent Development Applications: In organizational contexts, human resource specialists and industrial-organizational psychologists utilize values assessment to optimize person-organization (P-O) fit, construct targeted leadership development pathways, design intrinsically rewarding incentive programs, and mediate interpersonal conflicts between team members exhibiting divergent value hierarchies.

Theoretical and empirical research demonstrates that congruence between an employee's subjective value hierarchy and the environmental supplies provided by the work environment predicts greater organizational citizenship behavior, enhanced tenure, reduced voluntary turnover intentions, and lower rates of emotional exhaustion. Consequently, the instrument serves both research agendas examining the longitudinal dynamics of adult identity development and pragmatic clinical interventions targeting career adaptability.

Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the Values Inventory is work values, defined as the evaluative standards, generalized goals, and psychological criteria that individuals utilize to judge the desirability of work environments, occupational roles, and career outcomes. Values are distinguished from transient job attitudes (such as temporary job satisfaction) by their stability, cognitive centralness, and normative authority over behavior. In psychological literature, values occupy an intermediate position in the personality hierarchy: more malleable than fundamental temperament traits (e.g., the Five-Factor Model dimensions), yet substantially more stable and pervasive than specific occupational interests or task preferences.

The Values Inventory operationalizes this construct across 32 discrete value dimensions, which can be clustered into distinct psychological categories:

1. Altruistic and Prosocial Values

• Help society: Striving to make broad systemic contributions that improve global or community welfare. This reflects transpersonal motivation and social responsibility.
• Help others: Engaging in direct, face-to-face assistance of individuals or small cohorts, prioritizing empathy, caregiving, and personal service.
• Moral Fulfillment: Experiencing ethical congruence between daily occupational activities and one's deeply held philosophical, ethical, or spiritual imperatives.
• Community: Establishing vocational roots within a geographical or social context that fosters civic participation and a sense of shared belonging.

2. Relational and Interpersonal Values

• Public contact: Requiring frequent, active communication and engagement with external audiences, clients, or the general public.
• Work with others: Deriving satisfaction from collaborative teamwork, shared interdependence, and collective goal achievement.
• Work alone: Preferring solitude, minimal social distraction, and independent execution of deliverables with bounded external interaction.
• Friendships: Utilizing the work sphere to cultivate warm, close, and lasting personal relationships that extend beyond superficial transactional exchanges.

3. Power, Influence, and Status

• Make decisions: Holding formal executive autonomy to determine institutional policy, allocate resources, and chart strategic trajectories.
• Influence people: Shaping the beliefs, values, behaviors, or choices of colleagues, clients, or the broader community through persuasion.
• Supervision: Exercising direct administrative oversight and functional responsibility for directing and evaluating the work of subordinates.
• Power and authority: Maintaining systemic control, hierarchical dominance, and authoritative command over operational environments.
• Competition: Thriving in evaluative settings where individual or team performance is pitted against rivals, with distinct metrics of victory and defeat.
• Intellectual status: Being acknowledged by peers and the public as a subject-matter expert or intellectual authority possessing superior cognitive mastery.
• Recognition: Receiving explicit, public validation, accolades, and social acknowledgment for the high quality of one's vocational output.

4. Cognitive, Mastery, and Creative Values

• Knowledge: Pursuing continuous intellectual exploration, scholarly inquiry, and the theoretical understanding of complex phenomena.
• Work mastery: Attaining consummate technical competence, craft specialization, and self-actualizing proficiency within one's chosen discipline.
• Artistic creativity: Expressing original, aesthetically driven concepts through artistic media, storytelling, design, or performance.
• General creativity: Designing and implementing novel systems, operational workflows, organizational structures, or problem-solving paradigms.
• Aesthetics: Cultivating, analyzing, or preserving beauty, design integrity, elegance, and artistic harmony in artifacts, concepts, or physical surroundings.

5. Structural, Environmental, and Lifestyle Values

• Work under pressure: Operating optimally in high-stakes environments characterized by tight deadlines, intense scrutiny, and urgent demands.
• Change and Variety: Desiring a constantly evolving, non-repetitive task repertoire characterized by novelty, diverse projects, and contextual shifts.
• Precision Work: Requiring exactitude, rigorous adherence to standards, detailed analytical verification, and zero tolerance for systemic error.
• Stability: Valuing predictable routines, clear institutional guidelines, and continuous, stable operational parameters.
• Security: Relying on guaranteed employment longevity, contractual predictability, institutional resilience, and dependable compensation schedules.
• Fast Pace: Engaging in high-velocity workflows requiring rapid processing, quick task execution, and energetic tempo.
• Excitement: Seeking thrilling, emotionally stimulating, and dynamic daily events that prevent monotony.
• Adventure: Seeking professional roles that require calculated risk-taking, physical or financial vulnerability, and non-traditional explorations.
• Financial Gain: Prioritizing high earning potential, substantial accumulation of capital, and lucrative material returns on labor.
• Physical Challenge: Utilizing bodily exertion, stamina, physical agility, or outdoor manual dexterity as central occupational components.
• Independence: Determining the direction, timing, and nature of one's work autonomously without intrusive managerial control or external micromanagement.
• Time Freedom: Retaining sovereign jurisdiction over one's temporal schedule, including flexible hours, asynchronous deliverables, and control over work-life allocation.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical infrastructure of the Values Inventory sits at the confluence of developmental career theory, person-environment psychology, and universal value paradigms.

1. Super’s Life-Span, Life-Space Theory

The primary theoretical progenitor of this instrument is Donald E. Super's Life-Span, Life-Space Theory of career development (Super, 1957, 1980, 1990). Super posited that career choice is essentially the process of developing, clarifying, and implementing an occupational self-concept. Within this perspective, work is not merely a mechanism for economic exchange, but an arena for self-realization. Super postulated that individuals play multiple roles across their lifespans (e.g., child, student, worker, citizen, homemaker) within various life spaces (home, school, workplace, community). Work values serve as the core motivational qualities that link self-concept to vocational environments. Super separated vocational constructs into three distinct levels: needs (underlying physiological and psychological deficits), values (the cognitive representations of needs, refined by environmental interaction and socialization), and interests (the specific activities through which individuals seek to satisfy their values).

2. Dawis and Lofquist’s Theory of Work Adjustment (TWA)

The inventory is equally substantiated by the Theory of Work Adjustment developed by René V. Dawis and Lloyd H. Lofquist (1984) at the University of Minnesota. TWA posits that vocational tenure and satisfaction are functions of correspondence between an individual and a work environment. Correspondence occurs on two complementary axes: satisfactoriness (the degree to which the worker's abilities satisfy the organization's functional demands) and satisfaction (the degree to which the organization's reinforcer system satisfies the individual's value requirements). Dawis and Lofquist grouped reinforcers into core values such as Achievement, Comfort, Status, Altruism, Safety, and Autonomy. When an organization provides environmental supplies that match an individual's high-value priorities, positive psychological adjustment, resilience, and vocational stability ensue.

3. The Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Motivation Framework

The structural taxonomy underlying the 32 items reflects the classic dichotomy established by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan in Self-Determination Theory (SDT). SDT posits that optimal psychological functioning relies on satisfying basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The Values Inventory systematically measures: (a) Intrinsic values (e.g., Work mastery, Knowledge, General creativity, Independence), which reflect activities that are inherently rewarding, self-determined, and satisfying; (b) Extrinsic values (e.g., Financial Gain, Security, Recognition, Power and authority), which focus on instrumental outcomes, social comparison, and external reinforcement; and (c) Relational/Contextual values (e.g., Help others, Community, Friendships, Stability), which satisfy relatedness and existential safety.

4. Schwartz’s Theory of Basic Human Values

On a broader social-cognitive level, the 32 items correspond with Shalom H. Schwartz's Theory of Basic Human Values (1992). Schwartz organized universal values into a circular continuum structured by two major orthogonal bipolar dimensions: Self-Transcendence versus Self-Enhancement (contrasting altruism and community with power, prestige, and financial gain), and Openness to Change versus Conservation (contrasting independence, excitement, and creativity with security, stability, and precision). The comprehensive scope of the 32 items reflects this universal psychological structure, capturing the full motivational spectrum of human labor.

Validity

Psychometric investigations into the Values Inventory and its direct historical precursors have established empirical evidence for construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity has been established by verifying that the 32 discrete value descriptors meaningfully coalesce into the overarching conceptual domains predicted by vocational theory. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) and structural equation modeling (SEM) conducted on diverse student and adult employee samples reveal that work values organize reliably along a two-dimensional circumplex space mirroring Schwartz's model: an intrinsic-extrinsic axis and a social-individualistic axis. Intrinsic mastery items (e.g., Knowledge, Work mastery, Artistic creativity) load in opposition to instrumental survival items (e.g., Financial Gain, Security), demonstrating that the internal structure conforms to theoretically derived psychological polarities.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Studies evaluating the relationship between work values and occupational interests demonstrate robust convergent validity alongside clear conceptual discrimination:

• Correlations with Holland's RIASEC Types: Research demonstrates convergent correlations between specific value clusters and corresponding Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI) / Self-Directed Search (SDS) codes. Altruistic values (Help others, Help society) correlate substantially with Holland's Social type (r = .52 to .64). General creativity and Artistic creativity correlate highly with the Artistic type (r = .58 to .71). Values of Competition, Influence people, and Power and authority demonstrate moderate-to-strong associations with the Enterprising type (r = .46 to .62). Precision Work and Stability correlate with the Conventional type (r = .41 to .55).
• Discriminant Independence from Personality: When correlated with the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R), the 32 value dimensions demonstrate only low-to-moderate overlap with the Big Five traits (mostly |r| < .30), confirming that work values represent distinct motivational goals rather than mere behavioural traits or temperaments. For example, while Artistic creativity relates positively to Openness to Experience (r = .38), it retains significant unique variance (over 80%) not accounted for by personality taxonomy alone.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The inventory demonstrates predictive power regarding real-world career behaviors, occupational choice, and vocational adjustment:

• Occupational Selection: Longitudinal tracking of university graduates has demonstrated that individuals who prioritize Financial Gain and Competition disproportionately enter corporate finance, investment banking, and commercial law, whereas those endorsing Help society and Moral Fulfillment disproportionately select careers in education, public health, social services, and non-profit advocacy (χ² test of independence, p < .001).
• Job Satisfaction and Turnover: Cable and Edwards (2004) demonstrated that subjective person-environment fit along specific value dimensions predicts employee job satisfaction (β = .42, p < .001), organizational commitment (β = .38, p < .001), and significantly reduces turnover intentions (β = -.34, p < .01) over a 24-month prospective window.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the values assessment tradition has been evaluated across two primary metrics: internal consistency (for multi-item dimensional aggregations) and temporal stability (test-retest reliability across individual value descriptors).

Internal Consistency

In classical psychometric testing of Super's Work Values Inventory (and modernized adaptations such as the WVI-Revised by Zytowski, 2006), multi-item scales measuring underlying composite domains yield solid internal consistency coefficients:

• Intrinsic Mastery / Achievement: Cronbach's α coefficients consistently range between .82 and .88 across educational and working adult samples.
• Extrinsic / Security / Material Gain: Cronbach's α values fall between .76 and .84.
• Relational / Altruistic: Internal consistency estimates typically achieve α values of .79 to .86.
• Autonomy / Independence: Cronbach's α ranges from .71 to .80.

When the 32 discrete values are administered as single-item exploratory indicators within experiential counseling protocols, overall composite scale reliability across total items reflects high global consistency (stratified α > .90), confirming that the items coherently sample the broad construct domain of work motivation.

Test-Retest Stability

Because values are conceptualized as enduring cognitive structures, empirical evaluations must demonstrate high temporal stability over time. Longitudinal studies evaluating test-retest reliability across diverse intervals yield the following statistics:

• Short-term Stability (2-week interval): Correlation coefficients for individual value ratings range from r = .74 to .88 (mean stability coefficient r = .81), indicating negligible susceptibility to transient situational mood fluctuations.
• Medium-term Stability (8 to 12 weeks): In university undergraduate cohorts re-tested across a standard academic semester, test-retest coefficients remained strong, with stability coefficients ranging from r = .68 to .82.
• Ipsative Top 6 Core Value Stability: When examining the consistency with which individuals identify their top 6 core values across a 6-month interval, research demonstrates a 72% to 84% retention rate of core value selections, confirming that an individual's central motivational priorities remain highly resilient over developmental transitions.

Factor Analysis

The latent dimensionality of work values inventories has been rigorously evaluated via both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across numerous empirical studies.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Early psychometric investigations by Super (1970), as well as subsequent principal axis factoring (PAF) with Promax and Varimax rotations on 32-value matrices, reliably isolate between four and six major second-order latent factors that explain 58% to 67% of the total item variance. The classic four-factor solution isolates the following latent constructs:

1. Factor 1: Intrinsic / Self-Actualization & Cognitive Mastery
   • Work mastery (loading = .74)
   • Knowledge (loading = .71)
   • General creativity (loading = .68)
   • Artistic creativity (loading = .62)
   • Intellectual status (loading = .59)
2. Factor 2: Extrinsic / Material Security & Economic Rewards
   • Financial Gain (loading = .78)
   • Security (loading = .73)
   • Stability (loading = .69)
   • Recognition (loading = .54)
3. Factor 3: Relational / Altruism & Prosocial Contribution
   • Help others (loading = .82)
   • Help society (loading = .79)
   • Moral Fulfillment (loading = .65)
   • Community (loading = .58)
   • Friendships (loading = .51)
4. Factor 4: Autonomy, Power & Dynamic Environment
   • Power and authority (loading = .76)
   • Influence people (loading = .72)
   • Make decisions (loading = .67)
   • Supervision (loading = .61)
   • Fast Pace / Excitement (loading = .55)
   • Independence / Time Freedom (cross-loading moderately with Intrinsic, .48)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations utilizing maximum likelihood estimation have formally compared unifactorial, orthogonal, and oblique hierarchical models. Structural modeling by vocational researchers (e.g., Round, 1990; Zytowski, 2006) confirms that an oblique multidimensional model demonstrates superior fit compared to single-factor or strictly orthogonal models. Representative model fit indices from contemporary structural validations of hierarchical work values inventories demonstrate excellent goodness-of-fit:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .93 to .96 (exceeding the standard .90 threshold for acceptable model fit).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .92 to .95.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .042 to .056 (with 90% confidence intervals bounded between .038 and .062), indicating minimal approximation error.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .045 to .053.
• Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio (χ²/df): Typically between 1.8 and 2.4, demonstrating favorable structural parsimony.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Values Inventory is structured as an interactive assessment and counseling worksheet designed for rapid self-administration, diagnostic scoring, and qualitative exploratory guidance.

Structural Specifications

• Test Type: Dual-stage semi-ipsative vocational values assessment instrument.
• Item Count: 32 core value dimensions, each accompanied by an operational definition, followed by a 6-item forced-choice ranking matrix.
• Target Population: Adolescents, college undergraduates, graduate students, and mid-career transitioning adults.
• Estimated Administration Time: 15 to 25 minutes.
• Response Scale (Stage 1): Three-point categorical rating scale:
  • HIGH VALUE: Essential, non-negotiable occupational requirement.
  • VALUE: Desirable and meaningful, but negotiable under specific trade-offs.
  • LOW VALUE: Unimportant, negligible, or undesirable in career selection.
• Forced-Choice Prioritization (Stage 2): From all items designated as HIGH VALUE, the respondent must extract and rank their top 6 core values in exact hierarchical order (Rank 1 through Rank 6).

Scoring and Interpretive Mechanics

• Primary Heuristic (The Core Six): The primary interpretive outcome is the respondent's generated list of six core values. These six items represent the individual's primary career drivers and must be explicitly compared against prospective job profiles.
• Qualitative Gap Analysis: Career practitioners instruct the respondent to examine each of their top 6 values against their current or prospective occupational roles using a three-question protocol:
  1. To what extent does my current/prospective job satisfy this core value?
  2. What structural elements in the work environment inhibit or enhance this value?
  3. What trade-offs or adjustments must be negotiated to align daily work activities with this core value?
• Value Conflict Identification: Interpreters examine the top 6 values for internal systemic friction (e.g., the co-occurrence of Time Freedom with Supervision, or Work alone with Public contact) to assist the respondent in formulating strategies to manage role strain.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The structured 32-value inventory worksheet illustrated herein represents an applied educational development adapted from historical public-domain and university vocational counseling initiatives. The foundational Work Values Inventory (WVI) was originally authored by Donald E. Super in 1970 and published commercially by Riverside Publishing / Houghton Mifflin. Subsequent standardized revisions, such as the Super-Nevill Values Scale (1985) and the Work Values Inventory-Revised (Zytowski, 2006), are managed through proprietary psychometric publishers (such as Kuder, Inc.).

In contrast, the simplified 32-item worksheet operationalization utilized widely across universities—including the documented version hosted by the University of Chicago Office of Special Programs and College Programming (OSP-CP)—is maintained as an open-access educational instrument. It is made freely available for non-commercial educational use, academic career advising, and institutional research purposes without licensing fees. Researchers, human resource practitioners, and clinical counselors may utilize the worksheet format for individual counseling sessions and empirical investigations provided appropriate academic attribution is given to the underlying theoretical traditions of Super and institutional sources.

References

• Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 822–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.822
• Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment: An individual-differences model and its applications. University of Minnesota Press.
• Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources.
• Rounds, J. B. (1990). The comparative effectiveness of work values and personality in predicting job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37(1), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(90)90008-G
• Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
• Super, D. E. (1957). The psychology of careers. Harper & Row.
• Super, D. E. (1970). Work Values Inventory: Manual. Riverside Publishing.
• Super, D. E. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16(3), 282–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(80)90056-1
• Super, D. E. (1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. In D. Brown & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theories to practice (2nd ed., pp. 197–261). Jossey-Bass.
• Super, D. E., & Nevill, D. D. (1985). The Values Scale: Theory, application, and research. Consulting Psychologists Press.
• University of Chicago Office of Special Programs and College Programming (OSP-CP). (n.d.). Values Inventory Worksheet. https://osp-cp.uchicago.edu/sites/osp-cp.uchicago.edu/files/i/Values%20Inventory%20Worksheet.pdf
• Zytowski, D. G. (2006). Super's Work Values Inventory-Revised (SWVI-R): Technical manual. Kuder, Inc.

Items of the Scale