A systematic review of Australian higher education students’ and graduates’ work readiness

ABSTRACT Hiring new graduates is a cost-effective method of recruiting high-potential talent into organizations. Despite recent focus on graduate employability in the Australian higher education (HE) sector, a discrepancy remains between employer expectations of graduate work readiness (WR), and graduate perceptions of preparedness to commence professional work. This has implications for curriculum development, including work-integrated learning (WIL) programs that aim to improve WR of students ensuring they have the necessary skills and attributes required for work. What comprises WR skills and attributes, however, has been conceptualized differently in the literature. This systematic review aimed to address the lack of consistent conceptualization of WR, and the tools used to assess WR, in the Australian HE sector. A systematic review of five databases returned 138 articles based on the inclusion criteria, of which 16 met eligibility for review. The included studies were synthesized to compare conceptualizations and assessment of WR. Findings confirmed differences in conceptualization of WR and the majority of studies adopted a multidimensional measurement approach, comprising discipline-specific and generic skills. We discuss implications of varied conceptualizations of WR and assessment of WIL activities to improve WR in the higher education context.

growing consensus internationally that the principal role of Higher Education (HE) is to produce work-ready graduates with a core set of employability skills (Cotronei-Baird, 2020;Huq & Gilbert, 2013;Jackson, 2013a). The demand for new graduate employees, and employer expectations that graduates possess general and industry-specific skills, highlights the importance for industry initiatives within HE (i.e., internships, clinical placements, mentorships) to focus on developing individuals who are work-ready.

Conceptualizing work readiness
In their seminal study, Caballero and Walker (2010) defined Work Readiness (WR) as the extent to which graduates possess attributes and attitudes that prepare them for success in the working world. WR has been associated with graduate potentialjob performance, success, and promotion potential (Prikshat et al., 2019;Walker & Campbell, 2013). However, there is inconsistent conceptualization within the literature in relation to WR, both in terms of terminology used (e.g., 'graduate employability', 'transferable skills', and 'work preparedness') and what comprises WR (Caballero et al., 2011).
As a construct, WR is underpinned by latent trait theory, which posits that capabilities are unobservable (latent). They do not exist in a physical or physiological sense, they are defined and constructed, and it is through the construction and interpretation of capabilities that observations can be interpreted or understood (Griffin, 1995). To address the conceptual discrepancies, Caballero et al. (2011) developed an assessment tool, the Work Readiness Scale (WRS), to assess perceptions of WR. They surveyed undergraduate university students (n = 251) from a range of disciplines and found WR encapsulated four factorswork competence, personal characteristics, organizational acumen, and social intelligence. Applying a latent theory approach, the WRS provides a description of WR that assists the observation and interpretation of WR, helping to discriminate between people based on the four WR capability dimensions (Griffin, 1995). The four WR dimensions have been consistently confirmed within Australian students and new graduates (Dudley et al., 2020;Patterson et al., 2017;Walker et al., 2015). The notion that WR is a multidimensional concept is supported in the literature (Caballero & Walker, 2010;Hager & Holland, 2006;Jackson & Bridgstock, 2018). Given the increasing focus in HE on employability and successfully transitioning graduates to work, educational institutions play a critical role in developing work-ready individuals.

Bridging the divide between higher education and industry
It is important to consider the extent to which skills taught during HE can be transferred to an industry-related occupation (Hager & Holland, 2006). Within Australia, there is a disparity between graduate expectations and the education provided from HE institutions in disciplines such as nursing (e.g., Newton et al., 2011), medicine (e.g., Sanson-Fisher et al., 2005), allied health (Jones et al., 2015), accounting (Elijido-Ten & Kloot, 2015), and teaching (Lang et al., 2015). Further, if students are not well prepared for the transition from HE to the workforce, once hired into a graduate role, they can experience high levels of stress (O'Brien et al., 2012;Spanjaard et al., 2018), burnout (Duchscher, 2009), and attrition (Baldwin et al., 2014). Subsequently, there is increased attention for Australian HE programs to provide opportunities for students to apply their classroom learning in a work-related settingbroadly termed work-integrated learning (Freudenberg et al., 2011;Jackson & Bridgstock, 2021;Universities Australia, 2015). It is therefore important to consider the impact education providers have on developing work-ready individuals, in Australia and globally, and the need to bridge the divide between the HE sector and industry. This has implications in curriculum development, and pedagogical programs during undergraduate and postgraduate education.
The value of a work-ready learning environment There are various Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) opportunities, through embedded and co-curricular programs, that can be undertaken during HE for students to develop their employability skills (Smith et al., 2018). Embedded programs are incorporated into students' formal curriculum, whilst co-curricular activities are outside a students' formal learning but may be organized by their university (Jackson & Bridgstock, 2021). WIL is an umbrella term which refers to approaches and strategies that involves students in meaningful industry and/or community engagement, designed to integrate theory with the practice of work (Jackson & Bridgstock, 2021;Rook & Sloan, 2021). These programs are varied in design and industry. For example, a non-placementbased WIL program for chemical and food engineering students in Colombia (Reedy et al., 2020), clinical placements in healthcare (Newton et al., 2011), and internships for accounting students (Jackling & Natoli, 2015). Fleischmann (2015) reported creative arts students (n = 52) found an on-campus WIL experience was beneficial to develop work-ready attributes and an understanding of professional practice. Similarly, finalyear physical education pre-service teacher students (n = 25) perceived that a university-run mentoring program (i.e., The Assessment and Mentoring Program) provided them with opportunities to develop work-ready attributes (Jenkinson & Benson, 2016). It is argued that students in these programs feel safer to make mistakes, with the understanding that they are in a learning environment designed to develop WR skills relevant to their industry (Fleischmann, 2015;Hager & Holland, 2006).
Multiple studies have found a learning environment focused on graduate employability allows students to develop their WR skills. For example, Dudley et al. (2020) assessed predictors of WR in Australian graduate nurses (n = 75) following an 8-10-week placement. They found aspects of students' clinical learning environment (i.e., valuing nurses, innovative and adaptive culture, and individualization) were significantly predictive of two facets of WRwork competence and organizational acumen (Dudley et al., 2020). Howieson and Rogers (2018) found law students (n = 67) predominantly attributed an increase in knowledge and practical skills to the experiential learning method adopted (i.e., roleplays), followed by lectures and group presentations. These results demonstrate the impact various contexts, developed through WIL programs, can have on students' perceptions of WR. Recently, there has been a demand for quantitative tools to assess the added value these programs have on developing WR skills (Jackson & Bridgstock, 2021).

The need for synthesising work readiness research
A recent scoping review exploring conceptual confusion between WR and employability in HE over the last 15 years revealed twenty WR conceptualization articles spanning across ten countries, with the most significant research attention garnered in Australia (55%) followed by the USA (15%; Caballero et al., 2022). In Australia there is an increased focus on ensuring students are well prepared with WR skills for the transition from education to industry (Hager & Holland, 2006;Healy et al., 2022). As such, a systematic review to assess the varied conceptualizations of WR and insight into the tools adopted to assess WR is timely. To the authors' knowledge no previous reviews have been undertaken that focus on this topic, further highlighting the importance of synthesizing the existing body of research (Siddaway et al., 2019). The current systematic review aimed to provide insight into the current state of the WR field, by assessing how WR is conceptualized, what comprises WR, and the tools used to assess WR in the Australian context.

Method
A systematic review was conducted to capture literature assessing the conceptualization of WR and tools used to assess it, in Australian students and graduates. The current systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Moher et al., 2009). The inclusion and exclusion criteria were agreed upon by the research team.

Literature searching and data sources
The literature search was originally conducted in May 2021 and updated in February 2022 to include any additional published research after the original search date. As a result, one additional study was added. A computer search was conducted using the Psy-cInfo, Business Source Complete, Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC), Education Source, and MedLine databases. The defined search strategy was replicated as closely as possible across the databases, including subject headings where appropriate. The supplementary materials are available in Figshare via the link provided on the title page. The search terms of the executed search strategy were developed to align with the aforementioned aim of this systematic review and in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Reference lists of papers were reviewed for additional articles and keywords that may have been excluded from the original search using snowballing (Greenhalgh & Peacock, 2005). In an effort to obtain only the highest quality empirical literature, gray literature was omitted from the search.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Studies were screened and included in the review if they were: (a) written in English, (b) peer-reviewed, (c) accessible in full-text form, (d) published between 2011 and February 2022, and (e) conducted in Australia. The rationale to restrict the search to the last ten years was due to the publication of the Work Readiness Scale (WRS) by Caballero et al. (2011) as development of this tool was based on the collated WR literature prior to 2011. This review focused on research conducted in Australia due to the increased attention on HE programs to provide WIL opportunities in an Australian context. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methodology studies were included in the review. Studies were excluded if the study did not involve original research (i.e., Burgess & McGregor, 2018 was excluded as this was a systematic review investigating peer teaching training skills).
Studies were included if the participants were university students or new graduates studying domestically, in an Australian context. This included students who were undertaking or had recently completed HE (i.e., new graduates). Papers solely focused on investigating individuals with established careers in an industry-related job were excluded (e.g., Natoli et al., 2018). Studies assessing pedagogical programs, embedded and/or co-curricular within a course of study, were included.

Primary and secondary outcomes
This review primarily assessed students' perception of Work Readiness as operationalized by the author of the respective study. Caballero et al. (2011) reported four domains associated with WR: personal characteristics, social intelligence, organizational acumen, and work competence. Therefore, if studies assessed WR associated with all or some components, they were included. If the study was assessing applied WR skills (e.g., interprofessional communication skills; Venville & Andrews, 2020), the study was included. Articles were excluded if WR was not self-reported from a student or graduates' perception (i.e., supervisors, mentors, or clients' perceptions of WR as in Morgan & Hughes, 2016). This review also collated existing published scales, or measures, used to assess student and/or graduates' WR in an Australian context.

Classification of studies/selection process
Studies were selected from the aforementioned five databases searched. Title and abstract screening and full-text screening was conducted by three independent reviewers, including research assistants. Senior academic members of the larger research team were consulted to resolve any conflicts for including or excluding studies. Interrater reliability was 99.03%.

Data collection
If the full text article was not available, the corresponding author was contacted to attain the study. Study characteristics that were extracted, where applicable, included: name of the first author, research objective, research design, participant details, comparison, type of WIL program, length of program, variables assessed, published tools, psychometric properties, results, and effect size. The full text screening datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on request.

Quality assessment
The Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies (National Institute of Health, 2014) was adopted to assess the quality of the included studies. This quality assessment tool comprised 14 items (e.g., 'Was the study population clearly specified and defined?' and 'Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less?'), which were scored, and a cumulative rating was derived for each study, indicating 'good', 'fair', or 'poor' (National Institute of Health, 2014). Figure 1 provides an overview of the search and selection process following the PRISMA model (Moher et al., 2009). The initial search returned 170 studies (156 from database searching, 14 from reference lists and snowballing), and 30 duplicates were removed. The title and abstracts of 140 studies were reviewed. Following title and abstract searching, 43 studies were included for full-text review. Due to an incorrect participant population (e.g., overseas population), 13 studies were excluded (e.g., Baldwin et al., 2014), 13 further studies were excluded due to assessing the wrong outcomes (e.g., program theory or program feedback, Dart et al., 2021), and one study was excluded for incorrect study design (Clarke, 2018). Following this, 16 papers were identified assessing the conceptualization of students' and graduates' work-readiness skills in the Australian context and were included in the review.

Results
Quantitatively explore WR trajectory and compare educational programs (n = 75, Nursing).
(1) Fellowship Model; (2)   (1) Work Self-Efficacy Inventory; and (2) Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale (1) Work Self-Efficacy Inventory (α > 0.80) and (2)  Scale internal consistency (α = 0.96); Subscale internal consistency (α < 0.80) Note: WR: Work Readiness; WIL: Work-Integrated Learning. If a study did not include characteristics the cell was filled with a hyphen, '-'. Table 1 presents a summary of the characteristics for each study including research design and objectives, program characteristics, variables assessed, and psychometric assessment tool properties. The study characteristics were synthesized according to the research design, the discipline investigated, the WIL approach (i.e., embedded or co-curricular), and the quality assessment ratings. The studies were synthesized according to their approach to conceptualizing WR: a multi-dimensional approach and congruence with the four dimensions of WR identified in the Work Readiness Scale by Caballero et al. (2011), a discipline, or skill-specific conceptualization. If the included studies reported an effect size, these were synthesized to investigate the efficacy of WIL programs. For the results, effect size, and quality assessment please refer to supplementary materials in Figshare.

Characteristics of the studies reviewed
Of the final 16 studies reviewed, 13 had utilized a quantitative design (e.g., Barker et al., 2018), two utilized mixed methodologies (e.g., Newton et al., 2011), and one used a qualitative design (Hall et al., 2017). There were five studies that utilized a pre-post design (e.g., Jackson, 2019). Of these five studies, three of the studies reported effect size following the program, (e.g., Howieson & Rogers, 2018). A quarter of the studies used a cohort design (e.g., Jackson, 2013b). Six studies adopted a cross-sectional design (e.g., Gray et al., 2012), and one study used a two-phase observational design . There was a combination of six embedded (e.g., McNeil et al., 2012) and co-curricular (e.g., Dudley et al., 2020) WIL programs used in the included studies.
More than half (11 of 16) of the studies had samples from healthcare industries, such as nursing (e.g., Patterson et al., 2017), medicine (e.g., Scicluna et al., 2014), allied health (Venville & Andrews, 2020), occupational therapy (Gray et al., 2012), and pharmacy (Barker et al., 2018). Two studies used samples of students from science industries, Hall et al. (2017) used exercise and science students, and O'Brien et al. (2012) used civil engineering students. Howieson and Rogers (2018) used a sample of undergraduate law students. Jackson (2019) used a sample of undergraduate business students. One study had a sample of students from various disciplines (Jackson, 2013b).
Of the 16 studies, 10 achieved a 'good' quality assessment rating (e.g., Walker et al., 2015). The other six studies achieved a 'fair' quality assessment rating (e.g., O'Brien et al., 2012; refer to supplementary material for quality assessment ratings).
Half of the studies assessed attributes through published tools (e.g., Work Readiness Scale for Graduate Nurses, Dudley et al., 2020; Clinical Capability Questionnaire and Preparation for Hospital Practice Questionnaire, Scicluna et al., 2014). The remaining half used surveys or interview questions designed by the authors (e.g., Reid-Searl et al., 2021).
Of the studies assessing the impact of WIL programs on work-readiness skills, half of the studies found positive impacts following learning activities (e.g., Newton et al., 2011). One study found mixed results, dependent on participants' baseline work-readiness competencies (Dudley et al., 2020).

Discussion
We systematically reviewed literature collating the conceptualization of WR and the tools used to assess it, in an Australian context. There is an increased focus on work-integrated learning (WIL) programs within Australia, designed to develop WR skills (Universities Australia, 2015). Reviewing the literature provided clearer insight into how researchers are currently conceptualizing and measuring WR, and implications for curriculum development and the field of WR.

Current conceptualizations of work readiness
The current review found varied terminology used to express the concept of WR which has been defined as developing skills, attitudes, and attributes relevant to helping one succeed in the working world (Caballero & Walker, 2010). In addition to WR, the included studies adopted terminology such as 'generic capabilities' (McNeil et al., 2012), 'preparedness' , 'graduate attributes' (Hall et al., 2017), 'employability skills' (Jackson, 2013b), and 'clinical capabilities' (Scicluna et al., 2014). This is consistent with previous research (Caballero et al., 2011;Caballero et al., 2022) that has highlighted the inconsistencies in terminology within the literature. Despite the various language used to describe WR, we found, many of the reviewed studies assessed WR from a multidimensional perspective, including discipline-specific and generic skills.
Studies generally found WR comprised a combination of factors, which could be grouped thematically. The first factor was seemingly consistent with the perception of personal characteristics (Caballero et al., 2011). This was included in studies by Dudley et al. (2020), andWalker et al. (2015). In other studies, this was captured by terms such as managing inwards (Gray et al., 2012), independent learning (McNeil et al., 2012), professional identity , communication (e.g., Hall et al., 2017), coping skills (O'Brien et al., 2012), self-awareness and management (Jackson, 2013b), and confidence (Scicluna et al., 2014). Cumulatively, these studies consistently highlight the importance of developing individual soft skills to enhance WR (Jackson & Bridgstock, 2021).
Another element that was assessed in the literature relates to an awareness of ones' workplace protocol, termed organizational acumen by Caballero et al. (2011). Similarly, this term was adopted by Dudley et al. (2020) and Walker et al. (2015). In other identified studies this was captured by organizational familiarity (Newton et al., 2011), managing outwards (Gray et al., 2012), ethical practice (McNeil et al., 2012Usher et al., 2015), professionalism (Hall et al., 2017;Jackson, 2013b), global citizenship (Hall et al., 2017), ethics, lifelong learning, andproject management (O'Brien et al., 2012). This factor suggests the importance of WIL programs being conducted in an environment where the individual will eventually be working (i.e., hospital, classroom, corporate office; Woolley et al., 2019). As suggested by Hager and Holland (2006), this can shape the realities of a workplace, where students may deal with misunderstandings and consequences, whilst in a learning environment.
Studies that assessed WR from a multidimensional perspective included a factor accounting for overall competence to perform skills relevant to an individuals' work (i.e., work competence; Caballero et al., 2011). This was identified by factors such as managing inwards (Gray et al., 2012), clinical skills, practice skills , discipline-specific knowledge (Hall et al., 2017), engineering fundamentals, modern tool usage (O'Brien et al., 2012), work competence (Dudley et al., 2020;Walker et al., 2015), and clinically relevant skills (Scicluna et al., 2014). Of note, most of these studies assessed samples from a specific industry (e.g., medical students), utilizing surveys to assess industry-specific skills (e.g., Preparation for Hospital Practice Questionnaire; Scicluna et al., 2014). In contrast, Jackson (2013b) assessed students from a range of industries. Interestingly, the study by Jackson (2013b) researched the impacts of placement programs on employability skills associated with personal, interpersonal, and professional skills. Whilst these skills are important, this assessment lacks a technical component that may be inherent to WR.
A frequently assessed element in the studies included the ability of an individual to adapt and interact in work situations, that is social intelligence (Caballero et al., 2011). This was seen in domains such as social participation (Newton et al., 2011), managing outwards (Gray et al., 2012), problem-solving (e.g., McNeil et al., 2012, systems of care, professional identity (e.g., Usher et al., 2015), communication (e.g., McNeil et al., 2012, teamwork (e.g., Jackson, 2013b), social intelligence (Walker et al., 2015), accountability, thinking critically (Jackson, 2013b), interpersonal skills, and collaboration (Scicluna et al., 2014). This was contrasted by Venville and Andrews (2020) who evaluated a program designed specifically to develop these types of interprofessional skills. Venville and Andrews (2020) demonstrate the importance of patient or client-centred practice and the ability to adapt to a changing work environment. Additionally, Jackson (2019) explored the impacts of a WIL placement unit on professional identity, such as working effectively with others. Similarly, Hager and Holland (2006) acknowledged the importance of developing transdisciplinary knowledge during HE, beyond conventionally taught disciplinary knowledge. Therefore, these studies support the notion that social intelligence may be a component of the broader concept, WR.

Published tools to assess work readiness
Further to assessing the formulation of WR, this review aimed to determine what assessment tools were being adopted in the literature. We found studies utilized disciplinespecific tools, such as the Work Readiness Scale for Graduate Nurses (WRS-GN; e.g., Dudley et al., 2020) to assess graduate nurses' work-readiness skills. Scicluna et al. (2014) assessed medical students' capabilities through the Clinical Capability Questionnaire (CCQ) and the Preparation for Hospital Practice Questionnaire (PHPQ). Finally, the Casey-Fink Readiness for Practice Survey, a tool developed for an American sample, was adapted for an Australian sample  to assess preparedness in nursing students . Additionally, studies implicated work readiness by measuring specific skills using existing tools, such as the EXCELL Competency Scale (ECS) to assess the ability of a program (i.e., EXCELL) to develop communication competencies (Barker et al., 2018). Venville and Andrews (2020) assessed interprofessional skills through a combination of the Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale (ICVS), and the Work Self-Efficacy Inventory (WS-Ei). These studies highlight the use of discipline and skill-specific tools in the world of work readiness. Whilst relevant to the assessed industries and domains, these tools may lack validity if applied to a broader population. In line with this broader approach, McNeil et al. (2012) utilized the University of New South Wales Satisfaction Survey to compare generic capability development in participants from different disciplines. From a portion of the previously mentioned published tools, there seems to be an assessment of discipline-specific skills to the exclusion of generic skills, and vice versa. However, as confirmed in the literature, WR is a multidimensional construct applicable to multiple industries. Thus, we suggest there is a need to adopt a consistent conceptualization and tool to assess WR.

Limitations and implications of the review
Developing employable and work-ready graduates is a strategic imperative in HE. Across the globe, tertiary institutions are under increased political and economic pressures to equip graduates to work across different job roles, industries and work contexts (Caballero et al., 2022;Healy et al., 2022). Whilst WR research has garnered international attention it is evident there is a significant focus on WR in the Australian research and practice context (Caballero et al., 2022). Adding to this body of research, the current review highlights implications for further research in HE.
Similar to research by Coates et al. (2020), our results have implications for aligning pedagogical programs and activities with the skills required for success in the working world. These pressures highlight the importance of learning activities (e.g., WIL) that support students to achieve their employment goals (Healy et al., 2022), and universities to develop talent (Jackson & Bridgstock, 2021).
As HE institutions develop these activities, it is important to have consistent conceptualization and assessment methods to evaluate the broad capabilities developed (e.g., WR). Jackson and Bridgstock (2021) acknowledge the need for a quantitative measure to assess the efficacy and viability of pedagogical programs. Our results, however, demonstrated the lack of consistent assessment aligned with a multi-dimensional conceptualization of WR. As assessment plays a key role in evaluating pedagogical programs, our research has implications for developing WIL programs aligned with pedagogical frameworks (e.g., Campbell et al., 2019). This identified limitation highlights the need for future research to continue adopting a consistent multi-dimensional conceptualization of WR and psychometrically sound assessment to compare and evaluate HE programs and WR capabilities.
As graduates move from HE to industry employment, they are required to translate their learned skills into competencies relevant to their role. However, it has been reported that graduates may face a transition shock from education to industry, resulting in stress (Duchscher, 2009), burnout (Walker et al., 2017), and reduced retention (Merga, 2016). It is therefore necessary to develop individuals, in a learning environment, to become work-ready. This can be integrated across HE curriculum, during embedded and co-curricular WIL programs (Dean et al., 2020;Smith et al., 2018). As we shift towards congruency between HE and graduate expectations, it is critical to consistently conceptualize and define WR, encompassing skills, attributes, attitudes, capabilities, and competencies.

Conclusion
Based on the literature in this systematic review, we suggest WR is a multi-dimensional construct that is applicable to a range of industries. Further, there is an array of assessment tools used in the literature, however these tools may lack the generalizability required to assess WR in a range of disciplines. As demonstrated in this review, there are a variety of industries that actively engage in WIL programs to enhance students' WR skills. Additionally, there is a call for an assessment tool to provide a quantitative evaluation of WR outcomes following pedagogical programs (Jackson & Bridgstock, 2018). As we attempt to bridge the divide between education institutions and industry, we highlight the importance of evaluating the efficacy of these programs through a multidimensional lens of work readiness.