assumptions of the theory may translate poorly for test (Spokane,
1986). Thus our conclusions about cultural compatibility should be
carefully ascertained. Nonetheless, there is no more crucial goal for
vocational psychology than to contribute to the understanding of
cultural differences and to determine the extent to which there may
be cultural “universals” or commonalities on which we can con-
struct more comprehensive theories. This section on cultural util-
ity and validity emphasizes studies published since the previous
chapter (Spokane, 1996) and leads, naturally, to the discussion of
the two cases, one of which has cross-cultural implications (the case
of K); the other has gender issues (the case of E).
Four studies (Farh, Leong, & Law, 1998; Leong, Austin,
Sekaran, & Komarraju, 1998; Leung & Hou, 2001; Soh & Leong,
2001) have examined the cross-cultural validity of Holland’s the-
ory in Hong Kong, India, and Singapore). Farh and colleagues
(1998) examined 1,813 male and female freshmen in science, engi-
neering, and business management. Holland codes were derived
from self-reported preferences for occupations and the UNIACT
inventory using a combination of English and Chinese items. A lin-
ear model supported a circular but not a hexagonal model of inter-
ests. Further, students who preferred occupations of a particular
Holland type generally had interest scores consistent with that
choice (that is, congruent). Evidence supporting the Artistic and
Social types was weaker, which might be expected from the nature
of the sample under study (science, engineering, and technology
majors). Similarly, Soh and Leong (2001) used the UNIACT to
examine the structural equivalence of samples in Singapore and the
United States. They concluded that similar structural and criterion
validity were found and that there was cultural equivalence for the
S and E types and possibly for I types but not for the A and R types.
Although we applaud the conduct of such difficult cross-cultural
research, we urge caution in the interpretation of the findings
because of the use of (1) a restricted sample of types (the UNIACT
is one of the weakest indicators of Holland types [Savickas, Taber,
& Spokane, submitted]), (2) self-reports rather than actual occu-
406 CAREER CHOICE AND DEVELOPMENT