In contemporary career decision-making, it is considered important to take a comprehensive view that encompasses not just "what you can do" or "what you want to do" in isolation, but both together.

Traditional career aptitude assessments have tended to fall into two camps: those that measure vocational interests and values, and those that evaluate abilities and aptitude. In actual career development, however, it is the consideration of both "motivation and values (WILL)" and "abilities and skills (CAN)" — and the understanding of the gap between them — that leads to realistic and sustainable career choices [1].

This assessment measures WILL across 6 factors and 24 items, and CAN across 6 factors and 20 items, and quantifies the difference between the two as a "match rate." This integrated approach to WILL and CAN has attracted increasing attention in recent career theory, and has been identified as effective for enhancing the alignment between self-understanding and career choice [2].

The assessment is also grounded in the internationally widely used RIASEC model. By drawing on the six domains of Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional — and clarifying the relationship between each domain and its representative occupations — users are able to understand the balance between their WILL and CAN, and to identify career candidates that reflect both their aspirations and their current realities [3].

· What is WILL?
WILL refers to the concept of "what you want to do," "what you place value on," and "the direction of your interests and motivations" in career choice and development. An individual's interests and values are a critical factor in determining the sustainability and satisfaction of a career, and — alongside abilities and environmental conditions (CAN, MUST) — play a defining role in career fit.

· Development of Question Items
This scale was developed based on the RIASEC model (Holland, 1997), with each domain serving as a factor and four question items created for each. Each item is designed to directly ask about "behavioral preferences" or "expressions of values," so that respondents can naturally reflect their own orientations. This structure allows users to visualize which domains they place interest and value in, laying the foundation for career aptitude assessment.

· What is CAN?
CAN refers to the abilities, qualities, and skills that an individual is actually able to demonstrate. In career choice, it represents "what you are capable of doing" — encompassing a wide range of characteristics including intellectual ability, problem-solving capacity, interpersonal skills, practical execution, creativity, and adaptability. CAN is not limited to knowledge or qualifications; it also includes the behavioral tendencies that allow a person to draw flexibly on their abilities in response to different situations. In vocational psychology, CAN is defined in terms of "vocational aptitude" and "competency," and is regarded as an important predictor of job performance. While WILL measures the motivational dimension, CAN reflects actual performance capacity and adaptability — and measuring both together enables more effective career decision-making.

· Development of Question Items
This scale was developed using the RIASEC model as its foundation, with six domains set as factors and four items created for each to measure ability and aptitude. Questions focus on "the demonstration of specific skills" and "behavioral characteristics," and are designed so that respondents can naturally reflect their own strengths. For example, items in the Investigative domain assess analytical ability and logical thinking, while items in the Social domain assess interpersonal skills and collaborative capacity. This structure enables a multidimensional understanding of each user's ability profile — and by contrasting it with WILL (motivation and values), provides a foundation for identifying career options that are realistically attainable.

· WILL Scale Design

① Realistic
Orientation toward practical work, manual tasks, and physical activity
1. I am drawn to work that involves tools and machinery.
2. I find it enjoyable when hands-on effort produces a tangible result.
3. I enjoy being active outdoors and using my body.
4. I find meaning in making or repairing things.

② Investigative
Orientation toward inquiry, analysis, and logical thinking
5. I am interested in analyzing complex problems.
6. I find enjoyment in learning new knowledge.
7. I enjoy thinking based on data and evidence.
8. I find meaning in reasoning things through in a logical, step-by-step way.

③ Artistic
Orientation toward expression, creativity, and originality
9. I want to express my own ideas freely.
10. I am drawn to artistic and design activities.
11. I feel curious about trying new approaches and methods.
12. I feel fulfilled when I express myself in ways that reflect my individuality.

④ Social
Orientation toward helping, teaching, and interpersonal connection
13. I feel joy in being useful to others.
14. I enjoy working with others toward a shared goal.
15. I feel strongly motivated to support people who are struggling.
16. I find meaning in being appreciated by others.

⑤ Enterprising
Orientation toward leadership, negotiation, and influence
17. I want to bring people together and lead them.
18. I feel motivated to take on ambitious goals.
19. I enjoy moving things forward through persuasion and negotiation.
20. I am interested in launching new ventures and initiatives.

⑥ Conventional
Orientation toward rules, organization, and stability
21. I feel at ease working in an organized environment.
22. I find meaning in handling data and documents carefully.
23. I want to work in a stable environment over the long term.
24. I feel comfortable in work where the procedures are clearly defined.

· CAN Scale Design

① Realistic
Abilities related to physical activity, practical execution, and technical work
1. I am able to operate machinery and tools correctly.
2. I am able to complete manual and physical tasks.
3. I am able to understand spatial arrangements and structures.
4. I am able to handle outdoor and field-based activities.

② Investigative
Cognitive ability, analytical capacity, and problem-solving
5. I am able to organize complex data and information.
6. I am good at forming hypotheses and testing them.
7. I am able to think logically and systematically.
8. I am quick to learn new knowledge and theories.

③ Artistic
Creativity, originality, and expressive ability
9. I am able to generate new ideas.
10. I am good at creative approaches to design and expression.
11. I am able to engage in activities that draw on sensory and aesthetic elements.
12. I am able to bring unconventional ideas into concrete form.

④ Social
Interpersonal skills, collaborative capacity, and empathy
13. I am able to understand others' feelings and respond accordingly.
14. I am able to work cooperatively in a group to achieve results.
15. I am able to build relationships with people I have just met.
16. I am able to take action to support people who are struggling.

⑤ Enterprising
Leadership, influence, and planning ability
17. I am able to bring people together and provide direction.
18. I am able to move things forward through persuasion and negotiation.
19. I am able to plan and execute new initiatives.
20. I am able to bring about change within an organization or team.

⑥ Conventional
Accuracy, planning, and stability
21. I am able to handle data and documents accurately.
22. I am able to make a plan and carry it out in the correct order.
23. I am able to sustain detailed work accurately over time.
24. I am able to work in accordance with established rules and procedures.

· Scale Overview
Each factor is measured across four items using a 5-point scale (0–4 points), with a total possible score of 0–16 per factor. The theoretical mean is estimated at 8 points, with a variance of approximately 10.7 and a standard deviation of approximately 3.3.

· Rationale for Score Classifications
Three score bands have been established: Low = 0–8, Moderate = 9–12, and High = 13–16. These bands are based on theoretical assumptions derived from a normal distribution. The 9–12 range corresponds to approximately ±0.5 standard deviations from the mean, encompassing roughly 38% of the population. The high-score band of 13 or above places within the top approximately 25–30%, and has been set as a more stringent standard.

· Distribution Characteristics and Classification Validity
These distribution characteristics allow for a three-way classification of Low (bottom approximately 35%), Moderate (approximately 38%), and High (top approximately 27%). The boundaries are statistically sound, and by setting a slightly more demanding threshold for the high-score band, individuals with notably high trait levels can be identified more selectively.

· Practical Application
In practical use, defining the range around the theoretical mean (9–12 points) as "Moderate" allows the classification system to maintain consistency with normal distribution-based categories even when applied to real population data. By re-estimating the mean and standard deviation based on population data, more refined assessment becomes possible.

· Evaluation Structure and Score Criteria
Each domain consists of 4 questions with a maximum of 4 points each, for a total maximum score of 16 points per domain. The theoretical mean is approximately 8 points. The score criteria are as follows.

0–8: Low
9–12: Moderate
13–16: High

Calculating the Potential Score
The WILL and CAN scores are added together to calculate a Potential Score out of 100.
This score represents the overall potential of motivation combined with ability, and a higher score indicates greater capacity for achievement and room for growth.

Formula
Potential Score = WILL + CAN
Range: 0–100

Example
WILL = 45, CAN = 40
Potential Score = 85

Calculating the Match Rate
The Match Rate is calculated based on the gap between WILL and CAN.
The smaller the difference, the higher the alignment — and the higher the Match Rate (%).

Formula
Match Rate (%) = {1 − (|WILL − CAN| ÷ 50)} × 100

Example
WILL = 45, CAN = 40
Match Rate = {1 − (5 ÷ 50)} × 100 = 90%

Calculating the Overall Career Aptitude Score
The Overall Career Aptitude Score is calculated by multiplying the Potential Score by the Match Rate (%).
The score reaches its maximum when both WILL and CAN are high and well-aligned.
When either one is disproportionately higher, the score automatically decreases.

Formula
Overall Career Aptitude Score = Potential Score × (Match Rate ÷ 100)
Range: 0.0–100.0

Example
Potential Score = 85
Match Rate = 92.9%
Overall Career Aptitude Score = 85 × 0.929 = 78.0

Career Aptitude Score Classifications
The calculated score is evaluated across the following three levels.
The distribution is designed with Excellent at approximately 30%, Standard at approximately 35%, and Low at approximately 35%.

Excellent: 70 or above (top approximately 30%)
Standard: 50–69 (middle approximately 35%)
Low: 49 or below (bottom approximately 35%)

Excellent indicates a level at which motivation, ability, and alignment are all high — with stable performance and professional growth to be expected.
Standard indicates a solid foundation with the potential to develop into higher performance through effort and experience.
Low indicates a stage of development or a situation where reconsidering direction may be beneficial.

Gap Assessment (WILL − CAN)
The difference between WILL and CAN is calculated as a Gap Value G, and classified as follows.
The tolerance range is set somewhat broadly to account for natural variation in practical contexts.

Formula
G = WILL − CAN

Classifications
Aligned Type: |G| ≤ 6
　Motivation and ability are well-balanced and aligned — stable performance is to be expected.

WILL-Dominant Type: G > 6
　Motivation is high but ability has not fully caught up. Strengthening skills will directly translate into results.

CAN-Dominant Type: G < −6
　Ability is sufficient but motivation tends to be lower. Motivational support and environmental adjustment are effective approaches.

Result Generation
The domain with the highest career aptitude score is extracted, and a diagnostic comment is automatically generated.
In the case of a tie, the following priority order applies.
Realistic
Investigative
Artistic
Social
Enterprising
Conventional

Result Structure
Each result is automatically generated across 6 occupational categories,
combining 3 aptitude levels × 3 gap patterns = 54 result variations in total (6 categories × 3 × 3).

Score Calculation Examples

| WILL | CAN | Potential Score | Match Rate (%) | Overall Score | Rating |
| ---- | --- | --------------- | -------------- | ------------- | ------ |
| 50 | 50 | 100 | 100 | 100.0 | Excellent |
| 45 | 40 | 85 | 92.9 | 78.0 | Excellent |
| 35 | 30 | 65 | 92.9 | 60.4 | Standard |
| 40 | 20 | 60 | 71.4 | 42.8 | Low |

This assessment has not been subjected to factor analysis or checks for reliability and validity. It reflects the professional judgment of specialists, but please note that it lacks sufficient statistical grounding and is not intended for use in academic research.

[1] Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a Unifying Social Cognitive Theory of Career and Academic Interest, Choice, and Performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122.
[2] Savickas, M. L. (2013). Career Construction Theory and Practice. In R. W. Lent & S. D. Brown (Eds.), Career Development and Counseling. Wiley.
[3] Holland, J. L. (1997). Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments. Psychological Assessment Resources.