Test–retest interval. We selected l

Test–retest interval. We selected longitudinal studies that reported stability coefficients of 1 year or longer. Interval was coded in number of years.
Cohort. We coded cohort by subtracting the age at the time of the first assessment from the year that the first assessment was conducted in each longitudinal study. When first assessment dates were unavailable, we used the year of publication of the article as a cohort indicator. Studies were subsequently assigned to one of seven cohort groups: earlier than 1930s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.
Gender. The gender composition of the samples was identified and coded (0 male, 1 both, 2 female).
Scale generality. The generality of the scales used in the studies was coded into three levels: general interests, basic interests, and occupational interests (coded 1, 2 and 3, respectively).
The occupational scales in the Strong Vocational Interest Blank, the Strong–Campbell Interest Inventory (Strong & Campbell, 1974), the Strong Interest Inventory, and the Kuder Occupational Interest Survey (Kuder & Zytowski, 1991) were classified as occupational interest scales; the Basic Interest scales in the Strong–Campbell Interest Inventory and the Strong Interest Inventory, as well as the career clusters in the Career Occupational Preference System Interest Inventory (Knapp & Knapp, 1984), the 23 scales of the Ohio Vocational Interest Survey (D’Costa, Winefordner, Odgers, & Koons, 1970), and the Project TALENT interest inventory scales (Flanagan et al., 1966) were classified as basic interest scales. In addition, a number of studies, most notably the work of D. P. Campbell, clustered Strong Vocational Interest Blank items with high intercorrelations into homogeneous scales (e.g., Campbell, Borgen, Eastes, Johansson, & Peterson, 1968). They were grouped under the category of basic interest scales. The General Interest Themes in the Strong–Campbell Interest Inventory and the Strong Interest Inventory, the Self-Directed
Search (Holland, 1994), the Vocational Preference Inventory (Holland, 1965), the UNIACT, the Inventory of Children’s Activities–Revised (Tracey & Ward, 1998), the Kuder General Interest Survey (Kuder, 1975), the Kuder Preference Record (Kuder, 1939), and the RAMAK (Meir & Barok, 1974) were classified as general interest scales. According to the criterion listed above, interrater reliability was 96%.
Interest classification. Studies that investigated interest stability at the general interest level were differentiated between Holland’s (1958, 1997) and Kuder’s (1939, 1977) classification of interests. According to Swanson (1999), the categories within each model may be differentially stable. We further organized the rank-order correlations by their respective categories.

Results (Indonesian) 1:

Tes-tes ulang interval. Kami memilih studi longitudinal yang dilaporkan stabilitas koefisien 1 tahun atau lebih. Interval dikodekan dalam beberapa tahun.Kohort. Kami dikodekan kohort dengan mengurangi usia pada saat penilaian pertama dari tahun yang pertama penilaian dilakukan di setiap studi longitudinal. Kapan pertama penilaian tanggal yang tersedia, kami menggunakan tahun publikasi artikel sebagai indikator kohort. Studi yang ditugaskan ke salah satu dari tujuh kelompok kohort: lebih awal dari tahun 1930-an, tahun 1930-an, tahun 1940-an, 1950-an, 1960-an, 1970-an dan 1980-an.Jenis kelamin. Komposisi jenis kelamin sampel diidentifikasi dan dikodekan (0 perempuan, 1 kedua, 2 perempuan).Skala keumuman. Keumuman skala yang digunakan dalam studi dikodekan ke dalam tiga tingkat: kepentingan umum, kepentingan dasar, dan kepentingan pekerjaan (dikodekan 1, 2 dan 3, masing-masing).Timbangan kerja di kuat kejuruan menarik kosong, persediaan bunga kuat-Campbell (kuat & Campbell, 1974), kuat bunga persediaan, dan Kuder kerja bunga survei (Kuder & Zytowski, 1991) diklasifikasikan sebagai minat sisik; Timbangan dasar kepentingan kuat-Campbell bunga persediaan dan persediaan bunga kuat, juga cluster karir dalam karir kerja preferensi sistem bunga persediaan (Knapp & Knapp, 1984), timbangan 23 Ohio kejuruan bunga survei (D'Costa, Winefordner, Odgers, & Koons, 1970), dan BAKAT proyek bunga persediaan Timbangan (Flanagan et al., 1966) diklasifikasikan sebagai dasar bunga timbangan. Selain itu, sejumlah studi, terutama karya D. P. Campbell, berkerumun kuat kejuruan menarik kosong item dengan tinggi intercorrelations ke homogen Timbangan (misalnya, Campbell, Borg (disambiguasi), Eastes, Johansson, & Peterson, 1968). Mereka dikelompokkan di bawah kategori dasar bunga timbangan. Tema bunga umum dalam kuat-Campbell bunga persediaan dan persediaan minat yang kuat, mandiriCari (Belanda, 1994), persediaan preferensi kejuruan (Belanda, 1965), UNIACT, persediaan anak kegiatan – Revised (Tracey & Ward, 1998), survei kepentingan umum Kuder (Kuder, 1975), catatan preferensi Kuder (Kuder, 1939), dan RAMAK (Meir & Barok, 1974) diklasifikasikan sebagai skala kepentingan umum. Menurut kriteria yang tercantum di atas, interrater keandalan adalah 96%.Klasifikasi bunga. Studi yang diselidiki bunga stabilitas di tingkat kepentingan umum yang membedakan antara Belanda (tahun 1958, 1997) dan Kuder's (1939, 1977) klasifikasi kepentingan. Menurut Swanson (1999), kategori dalam setiap model mungkin diferensial stabil. Kami lebih lanjut diselenggarakan korelasi urutan peringkat oleh kategori masing-masing mereka.