Personality, Interest and Career Decisions: Assessing Psychological Readiness for Professional Choice Among High School Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the Author

I have reviewed the manuscript and appreciate the focus on vocational development during adolescence. The integration of vocational interests and temperament has the potential to contribute meaningfully to the literature. However, there are several substantive issues that need to be addressed to strengthen the manuscript.

Conceptual and Analytic Issues

1. Educational direction (natural mathematical vs social humanitarian). The manuscript indicates that educational direction was directly assessed in the instrument (p. 17, lines 745 to 747). However, the literature review does not provide a clear theoretical or empirical justification for conceptualizing educational pathways in terms of this binary distinction or for prioritizing this variable analytically. Although educational transitions are discussed in general terms (pp. 2 to 3), there is no specific rationale for collapsing pathways into these two domains. As a result, the role of educational direction appears under theorized relative to its prominence in the results and subsequent interpretation (p. 8; p. 20).
2. Treatment of RIASEC interests via a single dominant orientation. The literature review appropriately introduces Holland’s RIASEC framework and refers to dominant and differentiated profiles (p. 3). However, it does not justify reducing multidimensional interest data to a single dominant category for each student. In the methods and analyses, each student is assigned a dominant orientation based on the highest subscale score (p. 6; p. 13, lines 475 to 488), and this categorical variable is then used in subsequent analyses. This approach discards information about profile differentiation and secondary interests and effectively treats RIASEC types as mutually exclusive. The literature review does not provide sufficient justification for this reduction.
3. Conceptualization of emotional stability versus emotional reactivity. The literature review supports a general distinction between emotional stability and emotional reactivity in relation to decision making (p. 3). However, the manuscript shifts among multiple conceptualizations without clearly integrating them. It references Eysenck’s dimensional model of emotional stability versus neuroticism (p. 6), employs classical temperament categories such as sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric, and melancholic (p. 6), and then collapses these into a binary distinction between stable and reactive temperaments in the analyses (p. 13, lines 481 to 488). The literature review does not establish that emotional stability and emotional reactivity form a single continuum, nor does it justify collapsing temperament categories into a dichotomous variable.
4. Inconsistent operationalization of temperament constructs. Relatedly, the analytic treatment of temperament is inconsistent. Extraversion is retained as a continuous variable (p. 13), whereas emotional stability is derived from categorical temperament groupings and analyzed dichotomously (p. 13, lines 481 to 488). The literature review does not justify this mixed operationalization or explain why different representations of Eysenck related constructs are used within the same models. This inconsistency raises concerns about construct validity and interpretability.

Methodological and Reporting Issues

1. Study design and scope. The manuscript should more clearly frame the study as descriptive and correlational. Several interpretations throughout the paper imply explanatory or directional conclusions that are not supported by the study design.
2. Conceptual model (Section 2.5). In Section 2.5, the model is described as assuming reciprocal relationships (p. 5, line 199). However, the diagram uses single headed arrows, which conventionally indicate unidirectional effects. This creates a mismatch between the stated assumptions and the visual representation. The model diagram should be revised to accurately reflect the intended conceptual relationships.
3. Clarification of educational system terms. Clarify the age range corresponding to 9th grade. Explain what is meant by continuing to grade11.
4. Clarify the distinction between enrolling in a Lyceum versus a college track, including whether this reflects a vocational versus academic pathway.
5. Measurement reporting and reliability. Specify the number of items included in the temperament assessment and report its reliability. Clearly distinguish whether reported reliability coefficients are based on the current sample or prior studies. This lack of clarity is particularly evident in the reporting of RIASEC reliability.
6. Redundancy and presentation of descriptive results. Table 2 contains redundant information. Reporting the number of students who have made a vocational choice makes the complementary category directly inferable. More generally, results should not be reported in both tables and text.
7. Separation of results and interpretation. Interpretation appears in the results section and should be moved to the discussion. Examples include lines 333 to 337, 350 to 352, 367 to 368, 381 to 382, 464 to 473, 504 to 506, and 513 to 529.
8. Statistical reporting clarity. In lines 369 to 371, it is unclear how statistical significance was determined. The manuscript should specify the criteria used. The manuscript should also report the amount of variance explained by the model and by individual predictors.
9. Placement of theoretical content. The idea in lines 384 to 387 is conceptual and should appear in the literature review rather than in the results section.
10. Organization and labeling of analyses. The heading 4.4 Further analysis suggests unplanned analyses. A more precise heading such as Goodness of fit analyses is recommended. Chi square tables could be consolidated.
11. Questionable inclusion of post hoc analysis. Table 8 may not add meaningful value. Its purpose should be clarified or it should be removed.
12. Language and tone in results reporting. Avoid evaluative modifiers such as clearly. Remove wording such as additionally when it implies unplanned analyses.

 Conceptual and Interpretive Issues in the Discussion

14. Conceptual mismatch between theory and analytic approach. The manuscript notes that vocational development is ongoing and dynamic (p. 19, lines 606 to 607; p. 18, lines 549 to 550). However, the analytic approach treats constructs as static and mutually exclusive. This mismatch should be addressed.
15. Interpretability issues due to mutually exclusive categorization. Statements about Social interests being most prevalent (line 557) and claims about reliable identification of profiles (lines 561 to 563) are difficult to interpret given the imposed categorical structure.
16. Overinterpretation and causal language. The claim that temperament is a critical factor shaping readiness (lines 585 to 586) implies causality not supported by the design. More cautious language is needed.

15. Weak or unnecessary statements in the discussion. The sentence in lines 540 to 542 can be removed. The use of Remarkably in line 549 is not justified.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

I have reviewed the manuscript and appreciate the focus on vocational development during adolescence. The integration of vocational interests and temperament has the potential to contribute meaningfully to the literature. However, there are several substantive issues that need to be addressed to strengthen the manuscript.

 

Conceptual and Analytic Issues

Comment 1:

Educational direction (natural mathematical vs social humanitarian). The manuscript indicates that educational direction was directly assessed in the instrument (p. 17, lines 745 to 747). However, the literature review does not provide a clear theoretical or empirical justification for conceptualizing educational pathways in terms of this binary distinction or for prioritizing this variable analytically. Although educational transitions are discussed in general terms (pp. 2 to 3), there is no specific rationale for collapsing pathways into these two domains. As a result, the role of educational direction appears under theorized relative to its prominence in the results and subsequent interpretation (p. 8; p. 20).

 

Response

We thank the reviewer for this observation. We have now provided a clear contextual and theoretical justification for operationalizing educational direction as a binary distinction, grounded in the structure of the Kazakh educational system. This clarification has been added to the conceptual framework section. Please refer to section 2.1 (line 114-120).

 

Comment 2:

Treatment of RIASEC interests via a single dominant orientation. The literature review appropriately introduces Holland’s RIASEC framework and refers to dominant and differentiated profiles (p. 3). However, it does not justify reducing multidimensional interest data to a single dominant category for each student. In the methods and analyses, each student is assigned a dominant orientation based on the highest subscale score (p. 6; p. 13, lines 475 to 488), and this categorical variable is then used in subsequent analyses. This approach discards information about profile differentiation and secondary interests and effectively treats RIASEC types as mutually exclusive. The literature review does not provide sufficient justification for this reduction.

 

Response

We appreciate this important point. We have now clarified the rationale for using dominant RIASEC orientation as an analytic simplification and explicitly acknowledged its limitations in terms of loss of multidimensional information. (Please check section 3.3, line 258-262)

 

Comment 3:

Conceptualization of emotional stability versus emotional reactivity. The literature review supports a general distinction between emotional stability and emotional reactivity in relation to decision making (p. 3). However, the manuscript shifts among multiple conceptualizations without clearly integrating them. It references Eysenck’s dimensional model of emotional stability versus neuroticism (p. 6), employs classical temperament categories such as sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric, and melancholic (p. 6), and then collapses these into a binary distinction between stable and reactive temperaments in the analyses (p. 13, lines 481 to 488). The literature review does not establish that emotional stability and emotional reactivity form a single continuum, nor does it justify collapsing temperament categories into a dichotomous variable.

 

Response

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this conceptual inconsistency. We have now clarified the relationship between Eysenck’s dimensional model, classical temperament categories, and the binary operationalization used in the regression analysis. We also explicitly acknowledge this as a simplification.

 

Comment 4:

Inconsistent operationalization of temperament constructs. Relatedly, the analytic treatment of temperament is inconsistent. Extraversion is retained as a continuous variable (p. 13), whereas emotional stability is derived from categorical temperament groupings and analyzed dichotomously (p. 13, lines 481 to 488). The literature review does not justify this mixed operationalization or explain why different representations of Eysenck related constructs are used within the same models. This inconsistency raises concerns about construct validity and interpretability.

 

Response

Comment:

The analytic treatment of temperament is inconsistent, with extraversion treated as a continuous variable and emotional stability analyzed dichotomously. The literature review does not justify this mixed operationalization.

 

Response

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important issue regarding the operationalization of temperament constructs. In the revised manuscript, we have added an explicit methodological justification in the Data Analysis Strategy section 3.5.1 (p.8, lines 306–318). Specifically, we clarify that extraversion was retained as a continuous variable to preserve variability and statistical sensitivity, whereas emotional stability was operationalized dichotomously based on temperament classifications to capture meaningful differences in emotional regulation profiles relevant to decision-making. We further acknowledge that this represents a simplification of the underlying dimensional construct and have clarified this limitation accordingly.

 

 

Methodological and Reporting Issues

Comment 1:

 Study design and scope. The manuscript should more clearly frame the study as descriptive and correlational. Several interpretations throughout the paper imply explanatory or directional conclusions that are not supported by the study design.

 

Response

We have now explicitly clarified that the study is descriptive and correlational and does not support causal interpretations. Please refer to section 3.1 Research Design.

 

Comment 2:

Conceptual model (Section 2.5). In Section 2.5, the model is described as assuming reciprocal relationships (p. 5, line 199). However, the diagram uses single headed arrows, which conventionally indicate unidirectional effects. This creates a mismatch between the stated assumptions and the visual representation. The model diagram should be revised to accurately reflect the intended conceptual relationships.

 

Response

We have re-designed the conceptual model to picture the exact study’s concept. Please refer to section 2.5 in the manuscript.

 

Comment 3:

Clarification of educational system terms. Clarify the age range corresponding to 9th grade. Explain what is meant by continuing to grade11.

 

Response

We have revised this section, to clarify the educational context for international readers. Specifically, we have added a concise explanation of the typical age range of Grade 9 students (14–15 years) and clarified the meaning of continuing to Grade 11 as completing upper secondary academic education. Please check Research Setting and Participants section (Section 3.2).

 

Comment 4:

Clarify the distinction between enrolling in a Lyceum versus a college track, including whether this reflects a vocational versus academic pathway.

 

Response

We have also explained the distinction between college and Lyceum pathways as alternative educational tracks with a more vocational or specialized orientation within the Kazakh education system. Refer to the manuscript line 229-232

 

Comment 5:

Measurement reporting and reliability. Specify the number of items included in the temperament assessment and report its reliability. Clearly distinguish whether reported reliability coefficients are based on the current sample or prior studies. This lack of clarity is particularly evident in the reporting of RIASEC reliability.

 

Response

We appreciate the reviewer for this important observation. We have clarified that all reported reliability coefficients are based on the current study sample (n = 185). In addition, we have specified the number of items used in both the RIASEC and temperament assessments to improve transparency and replicability. Please refer to the manuscript, section 3.4 Temperament Assessment.

 

Comment 6:

Redundancy and presentation of descriptive results. Table 2 contains redundant information. Reporting the number of students who have made a vocational choice makes the complementary category directly inferable. More generally, results should not be reported in both tables and text.

 

Response

As suggested, we remove table 2, as it presents the same data highlighted in text in section 4.1. Please check the manuscript lines 360-372.

 

Comment 7:

Separation of results and interpretation. Interpretation appears in the results section and should be moved to the discussion. Examples include lines 333 to 337, 350 to 352, 367 to 368, 381 to 382, 464 to 473, 504 to 506, and 513 to 529.

 

Response

The aforementioned lines have been moved to the discussion section. Please see the manuscript “Discussion” section.

 

Comment 8:

Statistical reporting clarity. In lines 369 to 371, it is unclear how statistical significance was determined. The manuscript should specify the criteria used. The manuscript should also report the amount of variance explained by the model and by individual predictors.

 

Response

We have revised the description of Table 4 to avoid implying statistical significance since this section is purely descriptive. The reference to statistical significance has been either removed at this point and linked to the subsequent chi-square analysis (Table 9), ensuring consistency and clarity in statistical reporting. See the paragraph after Table 4 in the manuscript.

 

Comment 9:

 Placement of theoretical content. The idea in lines 384 to 387 is conceptual and should appear in the literature review rather than in the results section.

 

Response

As suggested the above paragraph has been moved to the literature section. See section 2.3.

 

Comment 10:

Organization and labeling of analyses. The heading 4.4 Further analysis suggests unplanned analyses. A more precise heading such as Goodness of fit analyses is recommended. Chi square tables could be consolidated.

 

Response

As recommended, we renamed the heading to “Goodness of fit Analyses”. Please check section 4.4 in the manuscript.

 

Comment 11:

Questionable inclusion of post hoc analysis. Table 8 may not add meaningful value. Its purpose should be clarified or it should be removed.

 

Response

We initially added table 8 for better presentation of the result, but it has been removed as suggested. Please see section 4.4.2 in the manuscript.

 

Comment 12:

Language and tone in results reporting. Avoid evaluative modifiers such as clearly. Remove wording such as additionally when it implies unplanned analyses.

 

Response

To enhance grammar, and develop better reader comprehension words like “clearly”, “remarkably” and “additionally” have been removed.

 

Conceptual and Interpretive Issues in the Discussion

Comment 13:

Conceptual mismatch between theory and analytic approach. The manuscript notes that vocational development is ongoing and dynamic (p. 19, lines 606 to 607; p. 18, lines 549 to 550). However, the analytic approach treats constructs as static and mutually exclusive. This mismatch should be addressed.

 

Response

As highlighted by the reviewer, we agree that there is a conceptual distinction between the dynamic nature of career development as described in the theoretical framework and the cross-sectional, categorical nature of the empirical analysis. In response, we have added a clarifying paragraph in the Discussion section explicitly acknowledging that the findings represent a static snapshot of psychological readiness and do not capture the full developmental process over time.

 

Comment 14:

Interpretability issues due to mutually exclusive categorization. Statements about Social interests being most prevalent (line 557) and claims about reliable identification of profiles (lines 561 to 563) are difficult to interpret given the imposed categorical structure.

 

Response

We agree with the suggestion that the use of a single dominant RIASEC category limits the ability to fully capture the multidimensional nature of vocational interests. In response, we have revised the relevant statements in the Discussion to avoid overinterpretation and to more accurately reflect the categorical nature of the analysis. We have also added a clarifying paragraph acknowledging that this approach simplifies complex interest profiles and should be interpreted with caution. See lines 606-610 in the manuscript.

 

Comment 15:

Overinterpretation and causal language. The claim that temperament is a critical factor shaping readiness (lines 585 to 586) implies causality not supported by the design. More cautious language is needed.

 

Response

This has been rephrased to avoid causal tone. Please see first paragraph; section 5.1.

 

Comment 16:

Weak or unnecessary statements in the discussion. The sentence in lines 540 to 542 can be removed. The use of Remarkably in line 549 is not justified.

 

Response

As suggested, the highlighted lines have been removed, while the word “Remarkably” has been removed too for better comprehension.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My overall impression is that the manuscript addresses a worthwhile and underexplored topic, and the Kazakhstan-based school context is a real strength. At the same time, the paper currently has important conceptual, methodological, analytical, and reporting weaknesses that should be addressed before publication. The main issue is that the manuscript claims to assess a multidimensional construct of “psychological readiness,” but the actual operationalization is narrower and more descriptive than the theoretical framing suggests. Bellow are some of my major suggestions:

Theoretical part

1) The theoretical model is broader than the empirical model actually tested. The manuscript defines psychological readiness as involving cognitive understanding, emotional capacity, motivational engagement, and future-oriented decision-making, then presents a three-part conceptual model consisting of vocational interests, temperament resources, and decision clarity. However, motivation, self-efficacy, career adaptability, or other core mechanisms implied in the text are not directly measured. As a result, the theory promises a richer construct than the data can support.

2) The paper sometimes treats “decision clarity” as both an indicator of readiness and an outcome predicted by other components of readiness. This creates conceptual circularity. If readiness is defined partly by having made a career decision, then using logistic regression to predict “career decision clarity” from other components of readiness needs a more careful conceptual justification. The authors should clarify whether decision clarity is a constitutive dimension of readiness, a criterion variable, or both. At present, the manuscript moves between these positions without fully resolving them.

3) The literature review is adequate in breadth, but it would benefit from sharper synthesis and stronger engagement with recent empirical work on adolescent career decision-making, career adaptability, vocational identity, and school-to-work transition processes. Several paragraphs remain descriptive and citation-driven rather than building a clear explanatory logic. In addition, some wording and citation formatting problems reduce the scholarly polish of the section.

Method

1) The sample is drawn from a single school in Almaty, and no demographic variables were collected. The authors later acknowledge this as a limitation, but the absence of even basic information, such as gender distribution, age variation, or socioeconomic indicators, makes it difficult to assess sample composition, comparability, or external validity. This is especially important in a study making developmental and policy-oriented claims.

2) The measurement of “decision clarity” is weak relative to the theoretical ambition. The decision-status instrument appears to be a very brief questionnaire with a small number of categorical items, including whether a profession has been chosen and whether the student plans to continue to Grade 10, enter college, or enroll in a Lyceum. Yet the analyses simplify the main dependent variable to a binary “chosen profession / not chosen” outcome. That is a very limited proxy for psychological readiness and does not fully reflect the construct described in the introduction and conceptual model.

3) The manuscript does not provide enough information about the specific RIASEC instrument or the Eysenck instrument used. It mentions a “RIASEC-based professional orientation questionnaire” with 42 items and an “Eysenck temperament inventory,” but the exact instrument versions and evidence for use in Kazakh-speaking adolescents are not sufficiently described. Without that, the psychometric foundation remains incomplete. Reporting Cronbach’s alpha alone is not enough. Can you briefly describe whether there is any proof of adapted versions of the instruments?

4) Some analytical choices are questionable. The chi-square goodness-of-fit tests compare observed category frequencies to a uniform distribution, but the rationale for using equal expected frequencies is weak. There is no strong theoretical reason why RIASEC categories, temperament categories, or school-pathway intentions should be uniformly distributed in this population. These analyses, therefore, add limited interpretive value and can make natural variation look more meaningful than it is. The logistic regression model is acceptable in principle, but it also raises issues. Emotional stability is dichotomized from classical temperament categories, which may reduce information and oversimplify the underlying trait structure. Dominant RIASEC orientation is also reduced to a single highest-score category, which ignores profile complexity and differentiation. A more informative approach would have been to use continuous subscale scores, or at least discuss the trade-offs of categorization more explicitly.

Results

1) The descriptive and goodness-of-fit findings are repeatedly taken as evidence that psychological readiness is “structured,” “non-random,” or multidimensional. That conclusion is too strong. Showing that frequencies are not equally distributed across categories does not, by itself, demonstrate multidimensionality or validate the conceptual model. At most, it shows that some categories were more common than others in this sample.

2) The interpretation of the chi-square results is especially problematic because the expected values are based on uniformity rather than on theory, normative data, or external benchmarks. As a result, statistical significance here says less than the manuscript implies.

3) The regression analysis is arguably the most informative part of the empirical section. Emotional stability significantly predicted having chosen a profession, and Investigative and Social types were more likely than the Conventional reference group to show decision clarity. But the practical explanatory power is modest: the model explains about 13% of the variance and improves classification accuracy from 57.8% to 68.1%. Those are meaningful but limited effects and should be interpreted more cautiously. It would also help to report confidence intervals for odds ratios, not only p-values and ORs. That would improve transparency and allow readers to judge precision.

Discussion

1) The paper repeatedly states that the results support a multidimensional model of psychological readiness. In reality, the study does not test a multidimensional latent structure, nor does it examine the interrelations among the proposed dimensions in a way that would justify strong structural claims. No factor analysis, path model, or explicit integrative model is estimated. The evidence is descriptive plus one logistic regression with a binary outcome. That is not enough to confirm the theoretical model as currently worded.

2) The discussion also introduces interpretations that are not clearly grounded in the reported analyses. For example, it argues for person-environment congruence between educational direction and vocational interests, but the presented results do not provide a direct test of congruence. Similarly, broader inferences about changing labor-market structures and service-oriented cultural shifts are plausible but speculative in the absence of supporting data from this sample.

3) Another issue is that the authors treat the predominance of choleric and melancholic types as evidence of elevated emotional demands in the cohort. That may be a plausible interpretation, but it risks overpathologizing a categorical temperament distribution derived from an older typological framework. The authors should be more cautious here and avoid implying that the sample is emotionally strained unless they have direct measures of stress, anxiety, or dysregulation.

4) The limitations section is appreciated and identifies several real weaknesses, especially the cross-sectional design, omission of demographic variables, and reliance on self-report. But one important limitation should be added more directly: the gap between the ambitious construct definition and the rather narrow operationalization. That is the central issue of the manuscript.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

My overall impression is that the manuscript addresses a worthwhile and underexplored topic, and the Kazakhstan-based school context is a real strength. At the same time, the paper currently has important conceptual, methodological, analytical, and reporting weaknesses that should be addressed before publication. The main issue is that the manuscript claims to assess a multidimensional construct of “psychological readiness,” but the actual operationalization is narrower and more descriptive than the theoretical framing suggests. Below are some of my major suggestions:

 

 

 

Theoretical part

Comment 1:

The theoretical model is broader than the empirical model actually tested. The manuscript defines psychological readiness as involving cognitive understanding, emotional capacity, motivational engagement, and future-oriented decision-making, then presents a three-part conceptual model consisting of vocational interests, temperament resources, and decision clarity. However, motivation, self-efficacy, career adaptability, or other core mechanisms implied in the text are not directly measured. As a result, the theory promises a richer construct than the data can support.

 

Response

Regards to this comment, we have clarified that our empirical model represents a partial operationalization of psychological readiness, focusing on components that could be directly measured in the current study. This has been added in the manuscript in section 2.5 “conceptual model”.

 

Comment 2:

The paper sometimes treats “decision clarity” as both an indicator of readiness and an outcome predicted by other components of readiness. This creates conceptual circularity. If readiness is defined partly by having made a career decision, then using logistic regression to predict “career decision clarity” from other components of readiness needs a more careful conceptual justification. The authors should clarify whether decision clarity is a constitutive dimension of readiness, a criterion variable, or both. At present, the manuscript moves between these positions without fully resolving them.

 

Response:

As crucial comment, we have clarified the conceptual role of decision clarity as a behavioral manifestation of readiness that is analytically modeled as a criterion variable, thereby resolving potential circularity. Please see section 2.5 in the manuscript.

 

Comment 3:

The literature review is adequate in breadth, but it would benefit from sharper synthesis and stronger engagement with recent empirical work on adolescent career decision-making, career adaptability, vocational identity, and school-to-work transition processes. Several paragraphs remain descriptive and citation-driven rather than building a clear explanatory logic. In addition, some wording and citation formatting problems reduce the scholarly polish of the section.

 

Response

As suggested by the reviewer, we added literature from some recent studies relevant to adolescent career decision-making and career adaptability. We also realigned the citation format in the section, some wordings were adjusted too accordingly. Please see section 2.2.

 

 

Method

Comment 1:

 

The sample is drawn from a single school in Almaty, and no demographic variables were collected. The authors later acknowledge this as a limitation, but the absence of even basic information, such as gender distribution, age variation, or socioeconomic indicators, makes it difficult to assess sample composition, comparability, or external validity. This is especially important in a study making developmental and policy-oriented claims.

 

Response

We acknowledge this limitation and have added a statement clarifying that the binary operationalization of decision clarity represents a simplified proxy of a more complex construct.

 

Comment 2:

The measurement of “decision clarity” is weak relative to the theoretical ambition. The decision-status instrument appears to be a very brief questionnaire with a small number of categorical items, including whether a profession has been chosen and whether the student plans to continue to Grade 10, enter college, or enroll in a Lyceum. Yet the analyses simplify the main dependent variable to a binary “chosen profession / not chosen” outcome. That is a very limited proxy for psychological readiness and does not fully reflect the construct described in the introduction and conceptual model.

 

Response

In regards to this comment, we agree that the operationalization of decision clarity as a binary variable represents a simplified proxy of a more complex construct. And in response, we have clarified the rationale for this operationalization in the Methods section 3.2.1, noting that it captures an initial level of decision commitment suitable for a school-based context. We have also strengthened the Limitations section by explicitly acknowledging that this measure does not fully reflect the multidimensional nature of psychological readiness, including aspects such as decisional confidence and exploration processes. Additionally, we have revised the Discussion (see second paragraph of discussion) to avoid overinterpretation and to ensure that findings are framed in terms of associations with initial decision commitment rather than a comprehensive measure of readiness.

 

Comment 3:

The manuscript does not provide enough information about the specific RIASEC instrument or the Eysenck instrument used. It mentions a “RIASEC-based professional orientation questionnaire” with 42 items and an “Eysenck temperament inventory,” but the exact instrument versions and evidence for use in Kazakh-speaking adolescents are not sufficiently described. Without that, the psychometric foundation remains incomplete. Reporting Cronbach’s alpha alone is not enough. Can you briefly describe whether there is any proof of adapted versions of the instruments?

 

Response

We have clarified the use and contextual adaptation of the instruments and acknowledged limitations in local validation evidence. (Please see section 3.2.1. in the manuscript)

 

Comment 4:

Some analytical choices are questionable. The chi-square goodness-of-fit tests compare observed category frequencies to a uniform distribution, but the rationale for using equal expected frequencies is weak. There is no strong theoretical reason why RIASEC categories, temperament categories, or school-pathway intentions should be uniformly distributed in this population. These analyses, therefore, add limited interpretive value and can make natural variation look more meaningful than it is. The logistic regression model is acceptable in principle, but it also raises issues. Emotional stability is dichotomized from classical temperament categories, which may reduce information and oversimplify the underlying trait structure. Dominant RIASEC orientation is also reduced to a single highest-score category, which ignores profile complexity and differentiation. A more informative approach would have been to use continuous subscale scores, or at least discuss the trade-offs of categorization more explicitly.

 

Response

We acknowledge that the goodness-of-fit analyses are exploratory and have clarified this in the manuscript, including their limitations. (see first paragraph after table 10)

 

Results

Comment 1:

 

The descriptive and goodness-of-fit findings are repeatedly taken as evidence that psychological readiness is “structured,” “non-random,” or multidimensional. That conclusion is too strong. Showing that frequencies are not equally distributed across categories does not, by itself, demonstrate multidimensionality or validate the conceptual model. At most, it shows that some categories were more common than others in this sample.

 

Response

As this comment tallied with the comment from the 2^nd referee, we have adjusted this issue. In response, we have added a clarifying paragraph in the Discussion section (first paragraph) explicitly acknowledging that the findings represent a static snapshot of psychological readiness and do not capture the full developmental process over time.

 

 

Comment 2:

 

The interpretation of the chi-square results is especially problematic because the expected values are based on uniformity rather than on theory, normative data, or external benchmarks. As a result, statistical significance here says less than the manuscript implies.

 

Response

We have clarified that these analyses are exploratory in nature and serve primarily to describe distributional variation within the sample. We have revised the interpretation throughout the manuscript to avoid overstating the significance of these findings and have added a limitation acknowledging this issue.

 

Comment 3:

The regression analysis is arguably the most informative part of the empirical section. Emotional stability significantly predicted having chosen a profession, and Investigative and Social types were more likely than the Conventional reference group to show decision clarity. But the practical explanatory power is modest: the model explains about 13% of the variance and improves classification accuracy from 57.8% to 68.1%. Those are meaningful but limited effects and should be interpreted more cautiously. It would also help to report confidence intervals for odds ratios, not only p-values and ORs. That would improve transparency and allow readers to judge precision.

 

Response

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. To address this, we have revised the interpretation of the regression results to more explicitly acknowledge the modest explanatory power of the model and to avoid overstatement. (see section 5.1 lines 688-693)

 

Discussion

Comment 1:

 

The paper repeatedly states that the results support a multidimensional model of psychological readiness. In reality, the study does not test a multidimensional latent structure, nor does it examine the interrelations among the proposed dimensions in a way that would justify strong structural claims. No factor analysis, path model, or explicit integrative model is estimated. The evidence is descriptive plus one logistic regression with a binary outcome. That is not enough to confirm the theoretical model as currently worded.

 

Response

As raised by the reviewer, the original wording overstated the extent to which the present analyses can confirm a multidimensional structure of psychological readiness. To address this, we have revised the relevant statement in the Discussion section to adopt more cautious language, indicating that the findings provide preliminary support for considering psychological readiness as a multidimensional construct rather than confirming it.

 

 

Comment 2:

The discussion also introduces interpretations that are not clearly grounded in the reported analyses. For example, it argues for person-environment congruence between educational direction and vocational interests, but the presented results do not provide a direct test of congruence. Similarly, broader inferences about changing labor-market structures and service-oriented cultural shifts are plausible but speculative in the absence of supporting data from this sample.

 

Response

This statement has been rephrased to avoid over statement of unclear reported analyses. (Please see lines 637-639)

 

Comment 3:

Another issue is that the authors treat the predominance of choleric and melancholic types as evidence of elevated emotional demands in the cohort. That may be a plausible interpretation, but it risks over-pathologizing a categorical temperament distribution derived from an older typological framework. The authors should be more cautious here and avoid implying that the sample is emotionally strained unless they have direct measures of stress, anxiety, or dysregulation.

 

Response

We have revised the discussion of temperament to avoid overinterpretation and removed language that could imply elevated psychological strain. (see lines 656-661 in the manuscript)

 

Comment 4:

The limitations section is appreciated and identifies several real weaknesses, especially the cross-sectional design, omission of demographic variables, and reliance on self-report. But one important limitation should be added more directly: the gap between the ambitious construct definition and the rather narrow operationalization. That is the central issue of the manuscript.

 

Response

We have added a key limitation explicitly acknowledging the gap between the theoretical conceptualization and empirical operationalization of psychological readiness. (see Limitations section at the end of the manuscript)

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for allowing me to review this manuscript, entitled "Personality, Interest and Career Decisions: Assessing Psychological Readiness for Professional Choice Among High School 3
Students". while I do appreciate the topic, I found the paper somewhat superficial. Indeed, the authors use a trait-level perspective to explain career decisions. Such decisions are also influenced  by various dimensions which are temporally in nature, but there are also a series of environmental factors. 

I think that authors should mention all these aspects in the discussion in order to make it clear that their evidence provides only an individualized perspective, and not a multilevel - temporal perspective on students career decisions. These are important limitations that authors should take into account in order to make the manuscript interesting and potentially impactufl. For example, how do these results inform about future perspectives for research? Which could by potential directions for research considering the multilevel and temporal nature of other dimensions?

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

Comment 1:

Thank you for allowing me to review this manuscript, entitled "Personality, Interest and Career Decisions: Assessing Psychological Readiness for Professional Choice Among High School 3
            Students". while I do appreciate the topic, I found the paper somewhat superficial. Indeed, the authors use a trait-level perspective to explain career decisions. Such decisions are also influenced by various dimensions which are temporally in nature, but there are also a series of environmental factors. 

I think that authors should mention all these aspects in the discussion in order to make it clear that their evidence provides only an individualized perspective, and not a multilevel - temporal perspective on students’ career decisions. These are important limitations that authors should take into account in order to make the manuscript interesting and potentially impactful. For example, how do these results inform about future perspectives for research? Which could by potential directions for research considering the multilevel and temporal nature of other dimensions?

 

Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful and constructive comment. We fully agree that career decision-making is a complex, multilevel, and temporally dynamic process that extends beyond individual-level psychological traits.

In response, we have revised the manuscript in several ways. First, we have expanded the Discussion section to explicitly situate our findings within a broader multilevel and developmental framework, acknowledging the role of contextual factors such as family, school environment, and socio-economic conditions, as well as the temporal nature of career development.

Second, we have strengthened the Limitations section by clearly stating that the present study adopts an individual-level and cross-sectional perspective, which does not capture environmental and longitudinal dynamics. Third, we have added a more detailed section on future research directions, highlighting the need for longitudinal and multilevel studies that integrate psychological, contextual, and temporal dimensions.

These revisions clarify the scope of the study and position the findings within a broader theoretical context, thereby enhancing the contribution and relevance of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed the reviewers’ suggestions and revised the manuscript accordingly. In its current form, the manuscript is suitable for publication, and I recommend its acceptance. Minor revisions are needed in the context of English proofread.

     

Author Response

Comment 1:

The authors have adequately addressed the reviewers’ suggestions and revised the manuscript accordingly. In its current form, the manuscript is suitable for publication, and I recommend its acceptance. Minor revisions are needed in the context of English proofread.

 

Response:

In response to the reviewer’s final comment, we have conducted a thorough proofreading of the entire manuscript. Specifically, we have carefully revised the text to address minor issues related to grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, and overall language clarity (updated changes highlighted in blue). We have also ensured consistency in terminology, citation formatting, and stylistic presentation throughout the manuscript.

We have improved the readability and linguistic precision of the paper, while preserving its original content and analytical contributions. Given that the remaining revisions were minor and editorial in nature, no substantive changes were made to the study’s structure, methodology, or findings. We hope that the manuscript is now fully aligned with the journal’s publication standards.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all of the suggestions, and I therefore recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication.