Journal of Vocational Behavior 60, 40–60 (2002) doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1811, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on Client Perceptions of and Preferences for University-Based Career Services Victoria A. Shivy Virginia Commonwealth University and Laura M. Koehly Texas A & M University One hundred thirty-three students who were actively seeking career services reported on their perceptions of the similarity among, and their preferences for, 17 different types of career assistance by way of a paired comparison task. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) and multidimensional preference modeling procedures were used to map these data into spatial representations. Ethnicity, international/domestic student status, tendency to fore- close (TTFS; Blustein, Ellis, & Devenis, 1989), and previous experience with an interest inventory each accounted for differences in perceptions. All participants preferred career assistance involving direct interaction with employed individuals, but class level, occupa- tional status, previous participation in a career development class, and previous experience with career counseling accounted for differences in preferences. C  2002 Elsevier Science Key Words: career services; multidimensional scaling; preference modeling; career coun- seling clients. University career centers provide a variety of vocational services to a range of career clients. Given the scope of services rendered and the diversity of the clients served, managing a comprehensive career center requires considerable attention to detail, including the cultivation of a clear sense of how a center’s client base responds to available forms of career services. Career researchers also have been interested in career clients’ reactions to and initial attitudes toward career services (Fretz, 1981; Rochlen, Mohr, & Hargrove, 1999). Yet, surprisingly little research The study was designed and the data were collected while the first author was a faculty member at the George Washington University. The research was funded by a GWU Research Enhancement and Incentive Award. We are grateful to Lorraine Boortz and Patricia Carretta as well as to members of Victoria A. Shivy’s GWU research team. Thanks are also due to Ev Worthington, Linda Subich, and two anonymous reviewers, who commented on earlier drafts of this article. Carlton Gallagher assisted with manuscript preparation. Copies of all proximity and preference matrices may be obtained from either author. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Victoria A. Shivy, Department of Psychology, Vir- ginia Commonwealth University, 808 West Franklin Street, Richmond, VA 23284-2018. 40 0001-8791/02 $35.00 C  2002 Elsevier Science All rights reserved.