雙元生涯發展力架構中掌控力之量表編製與預測效度考驗：以成年初顯期工作者為對象

The Construction and Predictive Validity Testing of the Career Controlling Ability Inventory within the Dual Career Development Abilities Framework: A Study on Emerging Adult Workers

本研究旨在探究雙元生涯發展力架構中的掌控力概念並據以編製量表及考驗其在大學及碩博士畢業生之信效度。掌控力量表乃參考雙元生涯發展理論及「計畫性機緣生涯量表」架構編製，經由三位生涯諮商輔導專家考驗效度，形成預試量表。第一次預試施測314份；第二次施測的前300份用於第二次預試分析，包含項目分析及探索式因素分析；後300份用於正式信效度檢驗，包含內部一致性及建構效度，並以典型相關與階層迴歸分析進行效標關聯效度及預測效度。結果如下：（1）掌控力量表共25題，包含五個分量表：聚焦、錨定、務實、量力而為和安穩。（2）全量表α係數為.88，具模式適配度，收斂及區別效度大抵符合標準，信度與建構效度尚稱合理。（3）掌控力量表具良好效標關聯效度，掌控力與生涯決定狀態和生涯圓滿具有顯著積差相關（r = .52, .51）；在排除背景變項和控制變項影響後，顯著正向預測生涯決定狀態和生涯圓滿（β= .14, .16）；掌控力與偶發力、恆毅力、學習精進，以及生涯決定狀態、生涯圓滿，這兩組變項間的典型相關係數高達.74（ρ2 = .55）。本研究反思雙元生涯發展力之對偶性，並探討掌控力的概念內涵與測量，進一步提出三種可能解釋，並對生涯諮商輔導實務及未來研究提出建議。

This study aimed to develop a conceptual framework of control within the Dual-Career Adaptability Framework, construct a corresponding scale (Career Controlling Ability Inventory, CCAI), and examine its reliability and validity. A questionnaire survey was conducted with alumni who graduated from Taiwanese public and private universities between 2016 and 2023 (corresponding to the academic years of the Republic of China [R.O.C.] calendar 105 to 112), holding bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degrees. The research instruments included the self-developed CCAI and other relevant scales. The development of the CCAI was primarily based on theories related to dual-career adaptability and the structure of the Planned Happenstance Career Inventory. Three experts in career counseling and guidance were invited to evaluate the content validity, forming the preliminary scale. The first pilot test collected 314 samples, whereas the second collected 300 samples for further pilot analysis, and 300 for formal reliability and validity testing. Item analyses and exploratory factor analyses were conducted using a pilot sample, and internal consistency and construct validity were assessed using a formal sample. Criterion-related and predictive validities were examined using canonical correlations and hierarchical regression analyses. The following are the results of this study: (1) The CCAI comprises 25 items across five subscales: ''Focus,'' ''Anchor,'' ''Realism,'' ''Moderation,'' and ''Stability.'' Among them, there are conceptual overlaps within two groups: ''Focus, Realism, and Moderation'' and ''Realism, Moderation, and Stability.'' Together, these subscales highlight the core of career control: conducting evaluations and analyzing them rationally and logically, and directly or indirectly helping individuals make decisions and maintain career stability in line with reality. This ability operates across situations, including exploring and anticipating the future, facing obstacles, and confronting risks. (2) The CCAI has reasonable internal quality. The overall internal consistency coefficient was .88, indicating good internal consistency. In terms of construct validity, the model fit is:χ2/df = 3.09; CFI = .77; GFI = .81; PNFI = .62; RMSEA = .08. Convergent and discriminant validity mostly met the standards. (3) The CCAI had good criterion-related validity. Positive correlations with the ''career decision state'' and ''consummate career'' (r = .52; r = .51) are identified. After controlling for background variables and covariates, it significantly positively predicts ''career decision state'' and ''consummate career'' (β= .14;β= .16). For career development ability, compromised career control, planned happenstance, grit, learning, ideal career development status, compromised career decision status, and consummate career, canonical correlation analysis indicated a coefficient of .74. Reflecting on the symmetry of dual career development abilities and the conceptual connotation of ''controlling ability,'' three possible explanations are proposed. While the dual career development abilities articulated by previous theories exhibit a complementary (dual) relationship, the current Control Scale and Planned Happenstance Scale do not yet present perfect symmetry, which may be due to three possible explanations. First, the Planned Happenstance Scale requires adjustment. Second, 'Grit and Perseverance' (Grit) is not a third career development factor outside the dual model; rather, it is a common element within it. Third, dual career development abilities present only a duality at the conceptual level, and specific measurement tools may not be suitable for development that perfectly matches a one-to-one subscale. This study provides suggestions for counselors and future researchers.