A Validity Study of the Salter Environmental Type Assessment

Daniel W. Salter Pennsylvania State University

The Salter Environmental Type Assessment (SETA) was designed to be a commensurate measure for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator instrument. To test its utility in the workplace, this study of the SETA was conducted with the Work Environment Scale and a sample of 202 college students. The results appeared consistent with previous research with both assessments and theoretical assumptions behind the two approaches to workplace measurement. The preliminary correlational analysis revealed multiple correlations that supported concurrent validity. To further examine the convergence between the assessments, a principal components factor analysis of the correlational results revealed three factors that accounted for 70% of the variance. Factor 1 appeared related to positive work settings (Extraversion, Intuition, and Feeling with Autonomy, Involvement, Innovation, Peer Cohesion, Supervisor Support, and inversely with Control). The second factor concerned structure in work settings (Judgment with Clarity, Task Orientation, and Physical Comfort). A third factor included Work Pressure and Task Orientation. Keywords: Person-environment fit, work environments, Jungian psychology, validity, career development

Achieving some manner of fit between people and their work environments has historically been an underlying goal of the career counseling profession (Herr, 2001). Due to its inherent complexity, however, the potential of the personenvironment interaction (PEI) model does not seem to have been fully realized in workplace applications (Schneider, 2001; Tinsley, 2000). The notable exception may be John Hollands pivotal work, the success of which could be easily attributed to its PEI characteristics (Gottfredson & Richards, 1999). Consistent with Hollands effort, perhaps, two common threads have emerged regarding ways to improve the PEI paradigm in practice, both generally (Gifford, 1997; Little, 1987; Winkel, 1985) and specifically to vocational applications (Tinsley,
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Daniel W. Salter, 330 CEDAR Building, University Park, PA 16802; e-mail: dws11@psu.edu. The Web site for the Salter Environmental Type Assessment is http://www.ed.psu.edu/seta/.
JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT, Vol. 10 No. 4, November 2002 DOI: 10.1177/1069072702238405 2002 Sage Publications 428 428440

Salter / VALIDITY STUDY OF SETA 429

2000). First, professionals need commensurate measures of the person and the setting to understand behavior more fully. Second, personality theories that address individual differences in adaptation seem to be a key to understanding the process of fit. One response to these two admonitions was the Salter Environmental Type Assessment (SETA) (Salter, 2000b), the validity of which is addressed in this study. Rather than starting from scratch, the SETA was designed to gauge environmental dispositions related to an established and recognized approach to personality functioning (Salter, 2000c). Jungs (1921/1971) theory of psychological types and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) instrument continue to hold a prominent place in the spheres of vocational counseling (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998), organizational development (Hirsh & Kummerow, 1998), and academic/educational advising (Evans, Forney, & Guido-Dibrito, 1998). The SETA works in conjunction with the MBTI tool to provide a snapshot of type congruence/incongruence (Salter, 2000c, p. 4) within the PEI paradigm. Such a goal would seem consistent with MBTI-based career counseling strategies and interventions that strive to help clients obtain some degree of fit in the workplace (McCaulley & Martin, 1995). Because a primary use of Jungian-type constructs has concerned vocational applications, the ability of the SETA to assess work settings has been emphasized from early in its development (Salter, 2000c). To that end, the Work Environment Scale (WES) (Insel & Moos, 1974) was originally chosen for concurrent validity studies of the SETA for both theoretical and practical reasons. The two assessments attempt to capture the systematic differences in psychosocial presses on individual functioning, or in other words, the personalities of behavioral settings. Both measurement techniques rely on the assumption that the best way to gauge differences among behavioral environments is by assessment of the perceptions of individuals in the setting. Pragmatically, in the mid1980s when this project began, the WES was about the only published environmental assessment for work environments. Tables 1 and 2 provide brief descriptions of the scales of the WES and the SETA (adapted from Moos, 1981, and Salter, 2000c). The purpose of this study was to examine the nascent SETA with the established WES in a concurrent validity study of individuals from a population that takes many career-related assessments, including the MBTIcollege students. From a theoretical standpoint, multiple correlational relationships between the two environmental assessments might be foreseen. The Relationships domain in Mooss (1981) theory concerns job commitment and the relationships among employees and supervisors in a workplace. Higher levels of these three WES scales (Involvement, Peer Cohesion, and Supervisor Support) would be expected to be related to both environmental Extraversion and Feeling, which are consistent with presses toward affiliation and interpersonal involvement as outlined in environmental type theory. The three scales in the Personal Growth domain measure different aspects of goal orientation in the work setting and appear related

430

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / November 2002

Table 1 Salter Environmental Type Assessment Scale Descriptions and Sample Items
Extraversion-Introversion (E-I) Scale Extraverted Environment Requires attention and participation of the people in it. Openly manages the exchanges in the setting. Serves as a catalyst for a broad array of events and actions. May be loud, noisy, bright, and/or social. Introverted Environment Allows individuals to regulate the extent of interactions. Facilitates private actions and individual functioning. May be described as subdued, quiet, sedate, and reserved. Sample E-I Items 1. The atmosphere of this environment is typically 21. (A) individuals groups (B) (A) hushed (B) noisy Sensing-Intuition (S-N) Scale Sensing Environment Primarily focuses on existent environmental elements (people, things, rules, values). Elements are identified for their immediate, practical applications and honed to the task. Intuitive Environment Diverges from the existent elements in setting. Diversity and experimentation would be conspicuous, as well as presses toward creativity and/or discovery. Sample S-N Items 2. Within this environment, which is rewarded 38. (A) facts imagination (B) more often? (A) creativity (B) efficiency Thinking-Feeling (T-F) Scale Thinking Environment Contains objective sets of logical operations that are based on a central, depersonalized truth or science. Although detached appraisal can often guide and advance the work of the thinking setting, competition, skepticism, and distrust might also be conspicuous. Feeling Environment Emphasizes connectiveness and stresses values and interpersonal interactions. Basic trust and warmth might be evidenced, although the setting could seem coercive and manipulative at a negative extreme. May be labeled as socially oriented, humanistic, or sentimental. Sample T-F Items 7. The usual tone of this environment is 31. (A) logic values (B) (A) businesslike (B) friendly

(continued)

Salter / VALIDITY STUDY OF SETA 431

Table 1 (continued)
Judging-Perceiving Scale Judging Environment Manifests orderliness and/or plannedness of the setting, both in operation and organization. Environmental systems (e.g., policies or customs) would function to maintain a coherent, collective reality but may become fixed and stagnant. Perceiving Environment Accentuates the elements in the setting. In some perceiving settings, the task of establishing a repertoire of elements could be sufficiently challenging as to thwart any efforts at maintaining a consistent reality. Disorder and change may be conspicuous. Sample J-P Items 10. When a decision must be made, 24. (A) consistent changing (B) this environment offers mostly (A) alternatives (B) guidelines Source. Adapted from Salter (2000b, 2000c).

Table 2 Work Environment Scale Descriptions

Relationships domain Involvement Peer Cohesion Supervisor Support Personal Growth domain Autonomy Task Orientation Work Pressure Systems Maintenance and Systems Change domain Clarity The extent to which employees are concerned about and committed to their jobs. The extent to which employees are friendly and supportive of one another. The extent to which management is supportive of employees and encourages employees to be supportive of one another. The extent to which employees are encouraged to be selfsufficient and to make their own decisions. The degree of emphasis on good planning, efficiency, and getting the job done. The degree to which the press of the work and time urgency dominate the job milieu.

Control Innovation Physical Comfort

The extent to which employees know what to expect in their daily routine and how explicitly rules and policies are communicated. The extent to which management uses rules and pressures to keep employees under control. The degree of emphasis on variety, change, and new approaches. The extent to which the physical surroundings contribute to a pleasant work environment.

Source. Adapted from Moos (1981).

432

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / November 2002

to combinations of the four functions of environmental typesSensing, Intuition, Thinking, and Feeling. Autonomy in a workplace, or the allowance for self-sufficiency, would seem to correspond to a more unstructured openness (Intuition) that respects individual differences (Feeling). On the other hand, Work Pressure and Task Orientation would seem to be focused on the details of work (Sensing) and their logical and effective execution (Thinking). The scales of the Systems Maintenance and Systems Change (SMSC) domain address the order and organization of work settings social climates, constructs that parallel environmental Judging and Perceiving. Specifically, the fluidity and changeability suggested by the Innovation scale would seem related to Perception, where Clarity, Control, and Physical Comfort would all seem to be maintenance or management aspects, which parallel the structured nature of Judging. Both approaches to describing and measuring work settings assume dynamic relationships among the scales constructs, however. In Mooss (1981) approach, various scales comprise one of three domains, which are indicative of the overall social ecology of a work setting. And, much like the MBTI tool, SETA scales measure constructs that are hypothesized to interact and produce environmental type profiles (Salter, 2000c). Such interactions have been suggested in examinations of the influences of contextual presses on the psychological experiences of workers. Using the MBTI and an earlier version of the SETA, Karras (1990) found that the Extraverted, Intuitive, and Feeling characteristics of some university work settings were predictive of decreased state anxiety on the part of all psychological types, even for introverts, who tended to show more trait anxiety. In a similar vein, research with the WES (Constable & Russell, 1986; Turnipseed, 1994) identified a few social climate dimensions that also appeared related to anxiety and burnout. Work settings high in Autonomy, Peer Cohesion, and Supervisor Support have tended to be negatively associated with worker stress. In addition, negative psychological outcomes have been found to be related to Work Pressure. Moving beyond simple scale-by-scale correlations between the WES and the SETA, a factor analytic strategy was used to examine these multiple relationships simultaneously. This approach was similar to one used by Saggino and Kline (1995) for a concurrent validity study of the MBTI with the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Although exploratory, the goal of this factor analysis (FA) was to locate these various environmental constructs in factor space. Mooss (1981) theory outlines three domains that are suggestive of these higher order factors: Relationships, Personal Growth, and SMSC. If concurrent validity between the two assessments exists, these domains might be anticipated to share factor space with related SETA dimensions, as discussed above (e.g., Extraversion-Introversion [E-I] and Thinking-Feeling [T-F] with Involvement, Peer Cohesion, and Supervisor Support). In addition, based on previous research with the SETA and the WES, a latent factor relating to worker stress might also be anticipated. Specifically,

Salter / VALIDITY STUDY OF SETA 433

scales from the Relationships (Peer Cohesion and Supervisor Support) and Personal Growth (Autonomy and Work Pressure) domains might be contained within a factor with E-I, Sensing-Intuition (S-N), and T-F.

METHOD Participants
The 202 participants in this study were identified in two ways. The majority of individuals (n = 167) were college students with previous work experience who volunteered to participate in ongoing research as part of their academic experience. Of this group, 94 were attending a community college, and 73 were enrolled at a research university. These students ranged from sophomore to doctoral level and were studying for careers in fields related to human services (e.g., counseling, nursing, social work). The remaining participants (n = 35) were student members of three different staff groups from student affairs settings. Their involvement was also voluntary. Of the larger sample, 63% were women and 37% were men. No attempt was made to ascertain this convenience samples generalizability to all workers and work environments, however.

Instrumentation
SETA. SETA items were rationally produced by examining behavioral correlates of the psychological types and theoretical constructs from the emerging taxonomy of environmental types (see Salter, 2000c, for more discussion). Table 1 provides brief descriptions of each scale and sample items. Each SETA scale is composed of 15 response pairs, for a total of 60, in both phrase question (33%) and word pair (67%) formats. Respondents must pick the item responses that better describe the setting being assessed. A differential between the subtotals of the two types of the responses is computed for each scale. These scores range from 15 to +15. Like the MBTI tools ipsative approach, the differentials are used to sort scores into four dichotomous type categories (E-I, S-N, T-F, and JudgingPerceiving [J-P]). Using a generalizability theory approach (Brennan, 1983; Shavelson & Webb, 1991), reliability estimates (E2) have been generated for SETA scales (n = 1,757, E-I = .85, S-N = .80, T-F = .87, J-P = .70) and were found to be comparable to similar estimates for the WES and earlier versions of the MBTI instrument (Salter, 2000c). In conjunction with the MBTI to study type congruence, the SETA has been used in work settings (Karras, 1990; van Rooyen, 1997), educational settings (Salter, 2000a), and living environments (Salter, 2000c). The SETA is still in development, however.

434

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / November 2002

WES. The WES was designed to measure the relevant dimensions of the social climates in various work settings. It was created through a FA of a larger pool of items. From those results, Moos (1981) outlined three domains of social climates (Relationships, Personal Growth, and SMSC) in which the 10 WES scales are nested (see Table 2). Nine true/false items comprise each of the 10 scales on the WES for a total of 90 items. A score on a scale is the summation of the total number of items answered toward the positive side of the construct, ranging from 0 to 9. A low score indicates a deficit or lack of that environmental trait in the setting. Moos found internal consistencies that ranged from .69 to .86 and 1-month retest reliabilities from .69 to .83. Research with the WES has involved a range of work settings, including health care environments, the military, factories, and fire stations (Moos, 1981). The continued use of the WES over the past couple of decades probably speaks best to its ability to measure work settings, however.

Procedure
The WES and the SETA were administered together to participants as per their respective protocols (Moos, 1981; Salter, 2000c). Respondents were placed on their own recognizance to complete the assessments. These students were asked to assess a work setting with which they were familiar, from either a current or previous job. Although in-class participants were not required to reveal the exact work settings that they referenced for their assessments, 103 respondents did. The 35 paraprofessionals provided information on their immediate work setting in student affairs. The known work settings fell into the following categories: college student services (40), food service and restaurant (19), medical and nursing (17), factories (2), schools (8), business and finance (9), customer service (6), retail (15), and counseling and social work (8). The generic term office was used by 17 additional individuals. The SETA profiles from the 202 respondents are listed in Table 3.

Data Analysis
Pearson product-moment (PPM) correlations were generated among the differential scores of the four SETA scales and the 10 WES scale scores. Expected significant correlations (p < .05) were assumed to be supportive of concurrent validity. For example, a positive correlation between Peer Cohesion on the WES and the T-F scale on the SETA would suggest that an increased level of camaraderie among work peers corresponded to a clearer inclination toward the positive interpersonal interactions of the feeling function. Of note, because of how the SETA differential scores are computed (ranging from 15 to +15), negative correlations would be associated with tendencies toward Extraversion, Sensing, Thinking, and Judging.

Salter / VALIDITY STUDY OF SETA 435

Table 3 Salter Environmental Type Assessment Type Table (N = 202)

ISTJ 23 ISTP 19 ESTP 19 ESTJ 22 ISFJ 2 ISFP 4 ESFP 30 ESFJ 36 INFJ 0 INFP 3 ENFP 26 ENFJ 13 INTJ 0 INTP 1 ENTP 2 ENTJ 2

Note. E (Extraversion) = 152; I (Introversion) = 53; S (Sensing) = 153; N (Intuition) = 52; T (Thinking) = 87; F (Feeling) = 118; J (Judging) = 109; P (Perceiving) = 96.

Working from this matrix of correlations, the SETA and WES results were factor analyzed using a principal components analysis. There were no missing values. Using the bootstrapping technique outlined by Thompson and Daniel (1996), which in this case was consistent with the simpler eigenvalues-greaterthan-one approach, three latent factors were identified and subsequently rotated with the varimax procedure. Structure coefficients greater than or equal to .500 were considered salient for interpretation, in light of the distinct gap in loadings between .400 and .500. Latent factors composed of multiple scales from the two assessments were considered indicative of concurrent validity.

RESULTS
Means and standard deviations for the SETA and WES scales are reported in Table 4. The entire range of scores (0 to 9 for the WES and 15 to +15 for the SETA) was observed for all but one scale. The J-P scale had a range of 13 to +13. The PPM correlation coefficients among the SETA differential scores and the WES scale scores are presented in Table 5. Consistent with hypotheses outlined above, the three Relationships domain scales (Involvement, Peer Cohesion, and Supervisor Support) each correlated strongly with both Extraversion and Feeling. As expected for the SMSC domain scales, Judging seemed associated with Clarity, Control, and Physical Comfort, and to a lesser extent, Perception seemed associated with Innovation. Higher levels of Autonomy were consistent with both Intuition and Feeling and Control with Sensing and Thinking. Task Orientation did not correlate with either Sensing or Thinking, however. When examining the higher order interactions among the SETA and WES scales, the FA revealed a three-factor solution that accounted for 69.9% of the variance (see Table 6). Factor 1 appeared consistent with the set of positive char-

436

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / November 2002

Table 4 Means and Standard Deviations for the Salter Environmental Type Assessment (SETA) and Work Environment Scale (N = 202)
M SETA scales Extraversion-Introversion Sensing-Intuition Thinking-Feeling Judging-Perceiving Work Environment Scales Involvement Peer Cohesion Supervisor Support Autonomy Task Orientation Work Pressure Clarity Control Innovation Physical Comfort
a

SD 6.807 7.176 7.819 6.339 2.651 2.272 2.478 2.462 2.318 2.566 2.134 1.959 2.794 2.572

6.455 4.851 1.267 0.104 5.218 5.832 5.055 5.455 6.040 4.951 5.173 5.163 3.658 5.168

a. Direction of positive is toward Introversion, Intuition, Feeling, and Perception.

Table 5 Pearson ProductMoment Correlation Coefficients Among the Salter Environmental Type Assessment (SETA) and the Work Environment Scale (WES) (N = 202)
SETA Scalesa WES Scales Involvement Peer Cohesion Supervisor Support Autonomy Task Orientation Work Pressure Clarity Control Innovation Physical Comfort E-I .409** .423** .355** .389** .258** .122 .171* .175* .414** .148* S-N .407** .246** .407** .488** .013 .306** .067 .387** .512** .138* T-F .614** .544** .588** .586** .266** .238** .292** .341** .468** .158* J-P .078 .133 .087 .146* .376** .113 .494** .191** .161* .262**

Note. E-I = Extraversion-Introversion; S-N = Sensing-Intuition; T-F = Thinking-Feeling; J-P = Judging-Perceiving. a. Direction of positive is toward Introversion, Intuition, Feeling, and Perception. *p < .05. **p < .01. (two tailed)

Salter / VALIDITY STUDY OF SETA 437

Table 6 Three-Factor Varimax Rotation of Principal Components Solution for the Salter Environmental Type Assessment (SETA) and the Work Environment Scale (WES) (N = 202)
Factor Variable WES SETA WES WES SETA WES WES SETA WES WES SETA WES WES WES Autonomy Thinking/Feeling Innovation Involvement Sensing/Intuition Supervisor Support Peer Cohesion Extraversion/Introversion Control Clarity Judging/Perception Task Orientation Physical Comfort Work Pressure I .824 .799 .768 .766 .696 .684 .652 .628 .539 .223 .254 .315 .167 .123 5.289 37.776 II .108 .156 .034 .355 .179 .306 .383 .104 .221 .808 .799 .671 .580 .190 2.313 16.520 III .110 .122 .045 .187 .291 .322 .018 .070 .389 .014 .059 .517 .144 .891 1.313 9.375

Eigenvalue Percentage of variance

Note. Bold numbers indicate structure coefficients that were considered salient for interpretation (>.500) and direction of environmental type dimensions.

acteristics for work settings from previous research with the SETA and WES. Specifically, Extraversion, Intuition, and Feeling were contained in a latent factor with higher levels of all three Relationships domain scales (Involvement, Peer Cohesion, and Supervisor Support), Autonomy, and Innovation and with lower levels of Control. For the second latent factor, Judging and Task Orientation, Clarity, and Physical Comfort were all located in the same factor space. The third factor was composed of two WES scales that appeared to have a relationship in this study, Work Pressure and Task Orientation.

DISCUSSION
The results of this study appeared to document convergence between these two approaches to assessing work setting characteristics, thereby supporting the validity of SETA. As anticipated from a theoretical standpoint, the three Relationships domain scales (Involvement, Peer Cohesion, Supervisor Support) each correlated with both Extraversion and Feeling on the SETA. Two of the

438

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / November 2002

Personal Growth scales followed expectations as well. Autonomy seemed related to both Intuition and Feeling, and Work Pressure with Sensing and Thinking. All SMSC scales correlated with their parallel J-P processes: Judging with Clarity, Control, and Physical Comfort and Perceiving with Innovation. The anomalous finding in the correlational study concerned the significant relationship between Feeling and Task Orientation. A specific focus on efficient execution of a task might be anticipated to be associated with the Thinking and Sensing functions, which was not the case for this sample. An informal examination of the work settings reported by these students showed that many were in the broader human services area. Perhaps the task of these settings was related to maintaining structured relationships with people (e.g., clients, patrons, patients). Furthermore, Task Orientation seemed more associated with Judging in the FA. Feeling may be one way of maintaining a focus on the task, with Thinking being the other. As expected, many of the SETA and WES scales were intercorrelated in this study. The multiple correlations between the two instruments were suggestive of the propositions that the climates of work settings are complex and that these constructs may interact to produce personalities, as it were. To uncover these patterns, FA was used. Rather than observing two separate factors related to the Relationships and Personal Growth domains, as theorized, one factor emerged that seemed to combine them and to echo previous research on stress and anxiety in the workplace. A high interpersonal component (Extraversion and Feeling on the SETA and the three Relationships domain scales on the WES) with a certain amount of creative freedom (as indicated by Intuition and Autonomy, Innovation, and lack of Control) appeared to encompass a complex set of conditions that could be labeled as a positive work setting. In light of the previous applied research, not only does this finding suggest further convergence between the two assessments, it could serve as the basis to strategies to improve workplace climate. Two other latent factors emerged from this analysis. Aspects revolving around structure in the work setting comprised a second factor in the data. That is, maintaining a shared reality appeared to require clarity of purpose, a focus on the task, and a physically comfortable work environment. Such notions are also consistent with the judging process as described in environmental type theory. This particular result was especially meaningful to the ongoing development of the SETA. The J-P scale has presented a significant challenge to constructing the Assessment due to its latency to the S-N and T-F scales and the fact that Jung did not discuss this particular dichotomy in his psychological-type theory (Salter, 2000c). The third factor, combining Task Orientation and Work Pressure, did not contain any SETA scales and was probably indicative of the nature of the positions that these college students had experienced (e.g., fast-food restaurants, basic patient care). This study may have been limited in at least a few ways. The sample size was small and was composed entirely of college students. Although these participants

Salter / VALIDITY STUDY OF SETA 439

may have had somewhat limited views of work environments, they were certainly part of a large population of individuals who receive countless career assessments every year, including the MBTI and WES. In addition, no attempt was made to ascertain the exact work settings of all respondents or the length of time in these settings, either of which may have affected the results. Still, a students view of a work setting, whether naive or not, would seem to be important to know in the career-advising process. Hopefully, continued study of the SETA with different individuals from different domains will help to identify the range of workers experiences. Of note, some SETA profiles were underrepresented in this sample, especially those with Introversion and with the NT (Intuition/Thinking) combination. More than likely, these students may not have had an opportunity to work in settings with those dispositions (e.g., low interpersonal involvement and expectations toward critical analysis of broader issues). Besides, although intuitively appealing, no theoretical reason exists to expect all SETA profiles among any sample of work settings, especially those that typify the jobs that college students hold. Finally, work environments are only one of many behavioral settings encountered by individuals. As a matter of fact, Moos and his associates have created additional domain-specific assessments for residential, small group, classroom, and family environments. Because the SETA was crafted to function across these domains, continued research with it and the MBTI instrument may further reveal the complexities of behavioral settings and how they interact with the variety of people in them.

SUMMARY
The SETA was designed as a commensurate measure for the MBTI tool to provide a fuller view of person/environment fit within the Jungian paradigm. The world of work is one area where the use of these two measures would seem to be indicated. In light of the relationships with the WES found in this study, the SETA may be tapping some of the same personality characteristics of work settings that are found in Mooss (1981) social climate theory and that seem relevant to worker success. Future research with other types of workers and with comparable instruments that have emerged since this project began (e.g., the Position Classification Inventory; Gottfredson & Richards, 1999) would seem to be indicated to gauge the SETAs overall utility to career assessment.

REFERENCES
Brennan, R. L. (1983). Elements of generalizability theory. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.

440

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / November 2002

Constable, J. F, & Russell, D. W. (1986). The effect of social support and the work environment upon burnout among nurses. Journal of Human Stress, 12(1), 20-26. Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-Dibrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gifford, R. (1997). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gottfredson, L. S., & Richards, J. M. (1999). The meaning and measurement of environments in Hollands theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 57-73. Herr, E. L. (2001). Career development and its practice: A historical perspective. Career Development Quarterly, 49, 196-211. Hirsh, S. K., & Kummerow, J. M. (1998). Introduction to type in organizations (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Insel, R., & Moos, R. H. (1974). Work Environment Scale. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types. (H. G. Baynes, Trans., revised by R.F.C. Hull). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1921) Karras, J. E. (1990). Psychological and environmental types: Implications of degrees of congruence in work. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus. Little, B. R. (1987). Personality and the environment. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 205-244). New York: John Wiley. McCaulley, M. H., & Martin, C. R. (1995). Career assessment and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 219-239. Moos, R. H. (1981). Work Environment Scale manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Saggino, A., & Kline, P. (1995). The location of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in personality factor space. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 591-597. Salter, D. W. (2000a). Gender bias issues in the college classroom: A study of the interactions between psychological and environmental types. Initiatives: The Journal of the National Association of Women in Education, 59(2). Retrieved November 13, 2000, from http://www.nawe.org Salter, D. W. (2000b). The Salter Environmental Type AssessmentExperimental Form B. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Salter, D. W. (2000c). SETA manual: A users guide to the Salter Environmental Type Assessment. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Schneider, B. (2001). Fits about fit. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 141-152. Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Thompson, B., & Daniel, L. C. (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: A historical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 197-208. Tinsley, H.E.A. (2000). The congruence myth: An analysis of the efficacy of the person-environment fit model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 147-179. Turnipseed, D. L. (1994). An analysis of the influence of work environment variables and moderators on the burnout syndrome. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 782-800. van Rooyen, J.H.P. (1997). Organisation character and managerial team type. Unpublished masters thesis. University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. Winkel, G. H. (1985). Ecological validity issues in field research settings. In A. Baum & J. E. Singer (Eds.), Advances in ecological psychology, Volume 5: Methods and environmental psychology (pp. 1-41). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.