Career maturity (also called vocational maturity) (Chen et al., 2023) presumes age-appropriate attitudinal and cognitive readiness (Savickas et al., 2002). People with career maturity are adept at defining career goals, selecting, planning, and executing to the defined goals (Kustanti et al., 2018), anticipating future development trends, as well as their expectations of their future career development (Li et al., 2023). Most college students are in the pre-employment period and have little formal contact with the professional world (Linnemeyer & Brown, 2010). They would vary by their self-efficacy with pre-cognitive planning of the task and taking action in advance, which emphasizes the degree of subjective efforts and enthusiasm (Savickas & Porfeli, 2011).

Self-efficacy is a person’s personal beliefs about his or her ability to engage in a particular behavior or action (Wright et al., 2014). Unlike overall self-confidence or self-esteem, self-efficacy beliefs are relatively dynamic and specific to a particular domain of activity (Jia & Wang, 2024). People’s self-efficacy beliefs about the behaviors required in different occupational fields vary. For example, a person may have high confidence in their ability to accomplish tasks that will allow them to successfully enter and excel in the sciences, but low confidence in their ability to excel in social or business domains.

Zhang (2022) argued that with the increasing pressure of employment in society, the psychological pressure of college students is increasing leading to the frequent occurrence of mental health problems, in order to solve this problem, he proposes that schools should increase the policy support to the relevant aspects and provide more psychological counseling services for students. Cao et al. (2021) conducted a study on mental health from the perspective of time perception in online learning, and its results showed that the number of college students with mental health problems was high during COVID-19, with 65.93% of college students reporting moderate to severe mental health problems. Career maturity can enhance an individual’s self-efficacy, thereby reduce the occurrence of career-related anxiety and depressive emotions while simultaneously increase subjective well-being.

Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) was developed based on Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (Wang et al., 2022), an influential theory of cognitive and motivational processes that has been extended to psychosocial functioning in many domains, such as academic performance, health behavior, and organizational development, and its specific framework is shown in Figure 1 below (Lent & Brown, 2011). It focuses on how individuals form career interests, choose career paths, and make adjustments in the face of career challenges (Medugorac et al., 2020). SCCT emphasizes the importance of an individual’s self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and personal goals in career decision-making and career development (Rogers & Creed, 2011).

Self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and goals are fundamental components of SCCT. The SCCT hypothesizes that, as long as people have both the skills and the environmental support necessary to engage in these activities, they are likely to develop an interest in the activities for which they have strong self-efficacy beliefs, to choose to engage in these activities, and perform better in them (Wang et al., 2022).

Based on SCCT, career maturity serves as a core indicator of individual career development. As its sub-dimensions, career concern, career curiosity, and career confidence directly influence an individual’s self-efficacy beliefs regarding career tasks (Lent & Brown, 2011). When students possess clear career awareness, they are more likely to believe in their ability to accomplish career-related tasks, reflecting the heightened self-efficacy associated with high career maturity. Furthermore, as extended applications of SCCT suggest, self-efficacy not only serves as a critical variable in career development but also positively related mental health by reducing perceived stress and enhancing coping abilities (Wright et al., 2014). Furthermore, existing research indicates that insufficient career maturity can trigger career anxiety and decision-making dilemmas, thereby undermining mental health (Kawai & Yamazaki, 2006). The mediating role of self-efficacy can explain the underlying mechanism of this association. Therefore, this study adopts the research pathway of career maturity → self-efficacy → mental health, which aligns with the theoretical logic of SCCT while addressing the practical need of how career education influences mental health.

This study explored the efficacy of a career group counseling intervention for students with low career maturity for their improved career maturity, self-efficacy, and mental health with college students. Accordingly, this study tested the following three research hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: College students’ career maturity is associated higher with self-efficacy and mental health.

Hypothesis 2: Self-efficacy plays a mediating role in the relationship between college students’ career maturity and mental health for improved mental health, which is shown in Figure 2 below.

Hypothesis 3: A brief career group counseling intervention can improve college students’ higher career maturity, self-efficacy and mental health.

Many countries continue to introduce new educational policies and guidance documents, emphasizing the importance of career education during the university period. Moreover, schools have the responsibility to help students improve their understanding of the real society, increase their knowledge of career interests, personality and other personal aspects, develop their abilities in various fields, set up the correct career value orientation, and improve their career choice or decision-making ability (Chen et al., 2021). In support of these initiatives, studies are needed on career counselling interventions that would deliver to promise.

This study adopted a two-stage design to explore the relationships among college students’ career maturity, self-efficacy, and mental health, and verify intervention effectiveness (as in Figure 3 below).

Participants and setting. Participants were 548 undergraduate students (female = 31.93%, mean age = 20.836, SD = 1.215 years) from a Chinese science and engineering university (Study 1). From these 30 eligible students (15 males, 15 females) were selected for the career group counselling efficacy study (Study 2).

This study employed G*Power for sample size power analysis Faul et al. (2007) to ensure the validity and reliability of statistical tests. For the correlation analysis in Study I, referencing Cohen (2013) effect size classification criteria, a medium effect size f² = 0.15, significance level α = 0.05, and test power (1-β) = 0.95 were set. The results indicated a minimum required sample size of 110 participants. For the SEM analysis, following the academic norms proposed by Hair et al. (2009), the ratio of sample size to the number of observed variables must satisfy ≥5:1. This study had 69 observed variables, leading to a calculated minimum required sample size of 345 participants. The effective sample size of 548 participants met this requirement. For the intervention study in

Study II, a 2 (group: experimental/control) × 2 (time: pretest/posttest) repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. Referencing Cohen (2013) effect size classification criteria, a large effect size η² = 0.14, significance level α = 0.05, and power (1-β) = 0.90 were set. The power analysis indicated a minimum required sample size of 26 participants. This study ultimately included 30 participants with low career maturity (15 in the experimental group and 15 in the control group), meeting the statistical power requirements for the analysis.

Career Maturity Scale for College Students. The Career Maturity Scale for college students was measured using the Chinese version of the Career Maturity Questionnaire developed by Savickas and Porfeli (2011). The scale is composed of three dimensions of concern, curiosity, and confidence, totaling 14 questions. The scale was scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate a higher level of career maturity among college students. The scale had a better than ideal item fit and good construct validity and can be used in subsequent studies. In this study, the internal consistency coefficient scores for Attention, Curiosity, and Assertiveness were 0.882, 0.887, and 0.857, respectively. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for Career Maturity scores was 0.956.

Self-Efficacy Scale. The self-efficacy scale was measured using the Chinese version of the General Self-Efficacy developed by Schwarzer et al. (1997) as revised by Leung and Leung (2011). The scale consists of a single dimension with a total of 10 questions. The scale is scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate higher self-efficacy among college students. The scale had a better than ideal item fit and good construct validity and can be used in subsequent studies. In this study, the General Self-Efficacy Cronbach’s alpha coefficient scores was 0.966.

Mental Health Scale. The mental health scale adopted the Anxiety Scale developed by Zung (1971), the Depression Scale developed by Zung (1965), and the Subjective Well-Being Scale developed by Tov and Diener (2013), which was revised in Chinese version. The scale consists of three dimensions of anxiety, depression, and subjective well-being, totaling 45 questions. The scale is scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scores for both the anxiety and depression dimensions were transformed, with higher scores indicating lower levels of anxiety and depression among college students. Overall, higher scores indicate higher levels of mental health among college students. The item fit of this scale was higher than ideal, with good construct validity, and can be used in subsequent studies. In this study, Mental health the internal consistency coefficient scores for depression, anxiety, and subjective well-being were 0.984, 0.969, and 0.819, respectively. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for toral Mental health scale scores was 0.982.

The data was analyzed using SPSS 25.0 and Amos 26.0. Study I explored variable relationships through Harman’s single factor test (first factor variance explained by 36.44%, with no significant common method bias), descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, etc.), Pearson correlation analysis, and used PROCESS (Model 4, 5000 bootstrap tests) to test the mediating effect of self-efficacy. A structural equation model was constructed using Amos 26.0 (with X²/df = 2–5, RMSEA < 0.10, and NFI/IFI/CFI > 0.85 as fitting criteria). Study II used 2 (experimental group/control group) × 2 (time: pre-test/post-test) repeated measures ANOVA to test the main effects and interaction effects between groups and time. LSD post hoc comparison (Bonferroni correction) was used to analyze the differences between pre-test and post-test within and between groups, and to quantify the intervention effect with a bias of η² (>0.14 for major effect, 0.06–0.14 for moderate effect, and <0.06 for minor effect).

After analyzing the experimental results of Study I, this study carried out the experimental intervention of Study II. The data of 30 student subjects with low career maturity were finally obtained, and the changes in the experimental pre-test data and post-test data of career maturity, self-efficacy and mental health of these subjects are shown in Figure 5. From the trend of changes, it can be found that after the intervention, the experimental group’s growth in the three dimensions is significantly higher than that of the control group, and in order to explore the specific reasons for this, this study will analyze each dimension specifically.