Work, Jobs, and Occupations A Critical Review of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (1980) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
7 AN ASSESSMENT OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES AS A SOURCE OF OCCUPATIONAL INFORMATION
7 AN ASSESSMENT OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES AS A SOURCE OF OCCUPATIONAL INFORMATION
Pages 148-195
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 148... ...
The results of this assessment, coupled with knowledge about use, have helped to inform us as to how well the data contained in the DOT meet the purposes for which they are intended and/or used. This assessment is also a basis for the committee's recommendations about whether data collection and analysis activities used in compiling future editions of the DOT should differ substantially from what has been done in the past.
|
From page 149... ...
SAMPLING PROCEDURES As described in chapter 6, the industry designations developed by the occupational analysis program provide the "sampling frames" from which establishments are selected for on-site visits. The underlying assumptions of the procedure are that jobs vary by industry, by region, and by size (i.e., number of employees)
|
From page 150... ...
Data for DOT establishments were obtained from a set of staffing schedules that were recently computerized and made available to us by the national office of the Division of Occupational Analysis. As noted in chapter 6, in the course of fourth edition production, staffing schedules were not prepared for all establishments entered or for all jobs analyzed.
|
From page 151... ...
Moreover, the comments and observations of field center personnel lend additional support to the general impression that job analysis activities have tended to place emphasis on manufacturing industries. Size was another important criterion of establishment selection according to the occupational analysts, one for which national data are also available from County Business Patterns, 1974 (U.S.
|
From page 152... ...
. C Workers employed in the establishments covered, not the employed civilian labor force.
|
From page 153... ...
. C Workers employed in the establishments covered, not the employed civilian labor force.
|
From page 154... ...
As noted above, the procedures for selecting sites for job analysis were not carefully developed. Analysts drew heavily on the third edition DOT to guide their job analysis activities.
|
From page 155... ...
Data on distribution of DOT titles by category provided by the Department of Labor occupational analysis program. data, and resulted in relative inattention to several sectors that include large proportions of workers.
|
From page 156... ...
The summary information at the end of the table shows that 11 percent of the DOT titles had no supporting documentation other than the third edition definition, which was based on job analyses conducted prior to 1965. Seventy-one percent of titles were supported by job analysis schedules only, 8 percent by schedules and occupational code requests, and the remaining 10 percent by other combinations of data.
|
From page 157... ...
If these data continue to be used to support DOT definitions, steps should probably be taken to determine their properties and possible biases and their comparability to data obtained via on-site observations and interviews. Table 7-5 shows the distribution of titles by the number of job analysis schedules available for each.
|
From page 158... ...
o 3+ TOTAL Number of othera sources o 1 2 3+ TOTAL All forms of documentation None JAS only OCR only Other only WAS and OCR JAS and other JAS, OCR, and other TOTAL TOTAL N 16 29 19 4 2 13 101 90 6 2 2 100 89 8 2 1 100 1 1 4 8 101 307 a Other includes comments from trade associations, job descriptions from employees, etc. SOURCE: Tabulated using data from Booz, Allen & Hamilton study of DOT documentation.
|
From page 159... ...
Granted that this claim is a vague one, there is still reason to question it, for 64 percent of fourth edition DOT titles are based either solely on a single third edition definition (which appears not to have been verified for the fourth edition) or on the new analysis of only one or two jobs.
|
From page 160... ...
66676469 V (verification of occupational definition based on previous job analysis) 813218 TOTAL100100100100 Direct observation No60116 Yes941009984 TOTAL100100100100 Photocopy No86989470 Yes142630 TOTAL100100100100 Quality Acceptable66537460 Unusual MTEWAa or MPSMS b not described19171822 Job did not convert to 3rd edition code and description inadequate3432 Technical terms not defined0000 Other1226516 TOTAL100100100100 Period produced 3rd edition (1962-1965)
|
From page 161... ...
covers third edition production. The second period (1966-1973)
|
From page 162... ...
SOURCE: Tabulated using data from Booz, Allen & Hamilton study of DOT documentation. previous schedules rather than writing up analyses anew also increased proportionally, from 6 percent in the post-third-edition period to 30 percent during the verification period.
|
From page 163... ...
According to Handbook procedures, full job descriptions are not required for schedules of treatment type C (confirming third edition codes) and V (verifying fourth edition descriptions)
|
From page 164... ...
It would be misguided, however, to abbreviate the most important piece of information on the job schedule: the job descriptions. In addition, the practice of writing full job descriptions only for jobs that cannot be converted to a third edition code may have hindered the effort to identify new jobs adequately or to update old ones by creating a tendency for analysts to force similarities between the job being analyzed and the third edition definition.
|
From page 165... ...
An Assessment of DOT as a Source of Occupational Information 165 TABLE 7-S The DOT Occupational Characteristics, Fourth Edition Variable Label Description a Scoring Worker functions DATA complexity of function in relation to data O to 6 b PEOPLE complexity of function in relation to people O to 8 b THINGS complexity of function in relation to things O to 7 b Training times GED general educational development 1 to 6 svP specific vocational preparation 1 to 9 Aptitudes INTELL VERBAL NUMER SPATIAL FORM CLERICAL MOTOR FINGDEX MANDEX EYEHAND COLORDIS Temperaments intelligence verbal aptitude numerical aptitude spatial perception form perception clerical perception motor coordination finger dexterity manual dexterity eye-hand-foot coordination color discrimination direction, control, and planning feelings, ideas, or facts influencing people sensory or judgmental criteria measurable or verifiable criteria dealing with people repetitive or continuous processes performing under stress set limits, tolerances, or standards variety and change 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 1 to4b 1 to5b 1 to5b 1 to5b 1 to5b 1 to5b 1 to5b 1 to5b 1 to5b 1 to5b 1 toSb pop FIF INFLU SJC MVC DEPL REPCON PUS STS VARCH Interests DATACOM communication of data versus activities with things scientific and technical activities versus business contact abstract and creative versus routine, concrete activities activities involving processes, machines, or techniques versus social welfare activities resulting in tangible, productive satisfaction versus prestige, esteem -1 to 1 d SCIENCE ABSTRACT MACHINE TANGIBLE -1 to Id -1 to 1d -1 to 1d -1 to 1d Physical demands STRENGTH lifting, carrying, pulling, pushing 1 to 5 CLIMB climbing, balancing 0/1 Continued overleaf
|
From page 166... ...
The validity of these variables general educational development (GED) and specific vocational preparation (svP)
|
From page 167... ...
The indicators represent a combination of measures taken from several sources, and the details of their development for use in the DOT are not well documented. The worker functions, for example, are an extension and refinement of a classification scheme developed in Great Britain after World War II to facilitate demobilization (International Labour Office, 1952~.
|
From page 168... ...
Prior to publication of the third edition, however, a major study of ratings of 4,000 of the most frequently occurring jobs was conducted. For the study, eight highly trained analysts at the national office of the occupational analysis program rated occupations on a variety of characteristics, using DOT definitions and job descriptions written by analysts in the field on the basis of on-site observations.
|
From page 169... ...
Job descriptions were taken verbatim from job analysis schedules prepared for the fourth edition. Thus the rating task closely replicated the procedures used to assign scores for the third edition but was an imperfect simulation of the procedures by which ratings for the fourth edition were actually generated.
|
From page 170... ...
The "magnum" estimate treats differences between raters and field centers as additional legitimate sources of variation. The usefulness of this approach is that the difference between the estimates can be interpreted substantively: the difference between the medium and minimum estimates is the error introduced by the fact that one job description rather than another is rated; and the difference between the maximum and medium estimates is the error introduced by the fact that raters differ from one another in the way they assign ratings.
|
From page 171... ...
The result for the STRENGTH scale is quite anomalous and suggests that this variable needs to be redesigned or abandoned. More generally, the lower reliablity in the rating of characteristics of service jobs lends credence to the conjecture that the worker function and worker trait scales will become increasingly ill suited to measuring the job content of the American economy as the labor force shifts away from manufacturing jobs, since it is likely that the characteristics of clerical, sales, managerial, and profession
|
From page 172... ...
172 WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS TABLE 7-10 Estimated Reliabilities, by Type of Occupation a Characteristic b Service Manufacturing DATA r (minimum) .694 .880 r (medium)
|
From page 173... ...
In sum, this exercise strongly suggests that the reliability and consistency of the rating of worker functions and worker traits should and can be substantially improved and that this could be quite simply accomplished by adopting standard psychometric procedures involving the rating of multiple job descriptions for each occupation independently by several analysts each. In addition, those variables with particularly low reliability should be reviewed with an eye to improving the reliablity of their measurement.
|
From page 174... ...
174 WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS TABLE 7-1~ Descriptive Statistics for Fourth Edition DOT Occupational Characteristicsa Variable Label bMean SDKurtosisSkew Range Worker functions DATA4.11 2.09-1.40-0.47 6 PEOPLE6.83 1.851.90-1.63 8 THINGS4.32 2.31-1.27-0.28 7 Training times GED3.00 1.09-0.450.12 5 svP4.46 2.06- 1.260.23 8 Aptitudes INTELL3.19 0.720.31-0.65 3 VERBAL3.43 0.780.83-1.17 4 NUMER3.63 0.780.43-0.49 4 SPATIAL3.47 0.710.37-0.77 4 FORM3.36 0.67-0.30-0.53 4 CLERICAL3.89 0.79-0.28-0.36 3 MOTOR3.46 0.56-0.79-0.24 3 FINGDEX3.56 0.610.30-0.88 4 MANDEX3.21 0.530.720.32 4 EYEHAND4.67 0.602.89-1.80 4 COLORDIS4.52 0.701.85-1.42 4 Temperaments c pop0.18 0.38 -- 1 FIF0.01 0.10 -- 1 INFLU0.04 0.20 -- 1 sac0.17 0.38 -- 1 MVC0.39 0.49 -- 1 DEPL0.23 0.42 -- 1 REPCON0.46 0.50 -- 1 PUS0.02 0.16 -- 1 STS0.60 0.49 -- 1 VARCH0.20 0.40 -- 1 Interests DATACOM-0.57 0.660.271.23 2 SCIENCE-0.12 0.451.40-0.49 2 ABSTRACT-0.47 0.53-1.250.21 2 MACHINE0.62 0.550.08-1.05 2 TANGIBLE-0.05 0.471.50-0.18 2 Physical demands c STRENGTH2.39 0.91-0.150.42 4 CLIMB0.08 0.27 -- 1 STOOP0.20 0.40 -- 1 REACH0.89 0.31 -- 1 TALK0.29 0.45 -- 1 SEE0.57 0.49 -- 1
|
From page 175... ...
. The temperaments involving feelings, ideas, or facts, influencing people, and performing under stress are required in fewer than 10 percent of all occupations, for example, as are the physical demands involving climbing and exposure to cold, heat, and wetness.
|
From page 176... ...
Both coefficients equal zero for normal distributions. The distributions of the PEOPLE worker function; the VERBAL, EYEHAND, and COEORDIS aptitudes; the DATACOM and MACHINE interests; and the LOCATION working condition are particularly skewed.
|
From page 177... ...
accounts for 49 percent of the total shared variance and consists of 17 items with loadings greater than .40. An inspection of the items suggests that this factor reflects the substantive complexity of work, as witnessed by the high loadings of the training variables GED and svP; the worker functions DATA and PEOPLE; and the aptitudes INTELL, NUMER, and VENAL.
|
From page 178... ...
178 cn _ Ct ·~_ _ Q o ~ _ ._ C)
|
From page 179... ...
179 so ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o o o.
|
From page 181... ...
181 o ~ ~ ~ ~ oo o ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ U~oo' o _ o o o.
|
From page 182... ...
182 ._ i_ o Cal _' m lo 00 o e ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O a ~ ~ C u i Y _ .
|
From page 184... ...
184 WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS TABLE 7-13 Factor Loadings: Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix a Factor Variableb 1 2 3 4 5 6 DATA .81 .06-.02 .44 .17-.05 PEOPLE.47-.05 .02 .70 .17 -.01 THINGS.31.66 .06 -.15 -.16 .13 GED.86.12 -.04 .26 .21 -.01 SVP.86.22 .02 .27 .09 .05 INTEEE.83.07 -.03 .14 .26 -.00 VERBAL.76-.04 -.08 .29 .33 -.11 NUMER.78.09 -.09 .18 .05 -.01 SPATIAL.55.47 .16 -.03 .05 .03 FORM.46.52 -.07 -.07 .07 .01 CLERICAL.64-.04 -.19 .27 .03 -.11 MOTOR.02.68 .07 -.04 -.03 -.08 F!
|
From page 185... ...
The fifth and sixth factors account for 5 and 3 percent of the shared variance in the matrix, respectively. Factor 5, which is composed of only 4 items, might be labeled "interpersonal skills." An inspection of the items' content reveals that this dimension involves working with feelings and ideas and sensory or judgmental criteria and that it involves influencing people and dealing with their social welfare.
|
From page 186... ...
186 WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS TABLE 7-14 Factor Analysis of Fourth Edition DOT Occupational Characteristics: Items and Loadings for Six Major Factors Variable Label description Loading Factor 1: substantive complexity, 49.3 percent a GED general educational development svP specific vocational preparation INTELL DATA REPCON NUMER VERBAL ABSTRACT MVC CLERICAL SPATIAL PEOPLE FORM TALK pop VARCH DATACOM intelligence b complexity of functioning with data b repetitive or continuous processes numerical aptitude b verbal aptitude b abstract and creative versus routine, concrete activities measurable or verifiable criteria clerical perception b spatial perception b complexity of functioning with people b form perception b talking direction, control, and planning variety and change communication of data versus activities with things Factor 2: motor skills, 22.6 percent a FINGDEX finger dexterity b MOTOR motor coordination b MANDEX manual dexterity b THINGS FORM SPATIAL SEE REACH STS MACHINE complexity of functioning with things b form perception b spatial perception b seeing reaching set limits, tolerances, or standards activities involving processes, machines versus social welfare Factor 3: physical demands, 9.9 percept a LOCATION outside working conditions STOOP stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling EYEHAND CLIMB STRENGTH eye-hand-foot coordination b climbing, balancing lifting, carrying, pulling, pushing Factor 4: management, 5.4 percept a DEPL dealing with people pop direction, control, planning PEOPLE complexity of functioning with people b TALK talking .86 .86 .83 .81 .81 .78 .76 .68 .64 .64 .55 .47 .46 .44 .43 .42 .41 .69 .68 .67 .66 .52 .47 .43 .42 .37 .33 .67 .53 .52 .49 .48 .78 .74 .70 .64
|
From page 187... ...
Evidence that the rating procedure itself is an important source of the high degree of interrelationship among the DOT variables is offered by the results of a similar factor analysis performed by using third edition data (Barker, 1969~. For the third edition, different analysts rated each of the traits: one analyst rated occupations for aptitudes, another for temperaments, etc., a procedure that would mitigate the tendency to force consistency among the ratings.
|
From page 188... ...
Such jobs as Nursery School Teacher and Practical Nurse were coded as having minimal or no significant relationship to data, people, and things, while such jobs as Dog Pound Attendant were rated as functioning at a higher level of complexity. According to informants in the national office the no significant relationship category for the worker functions was dropped in the fourth edition in response to the charge of sex bias in the third edition.
|
From page 189... ...
Third edition DOT codes were assigned to each occupational response by trained occupational analysts in the occupational analysis field centers. Fourth edition codes were subsequently added to the data, using a map prepared by the Division of Occupational Analysis that related fourth edition DOT codes to third edition codes.
|
From page 190... ...
In contrast to the clerical and sales sector the service and benchwork sectors included here because they are also large employers of women do not exhibit radically different patterns of upgrading for jobs held by men and those held by women, although they do show significant differences in the proportion of occupations in the third edition with no significant relationship to data, people, and things. What do these results tell us about sex bias in the fourth edition DoT?
|
From page 191... ...
, and that the average svP levels of the jobs held by men and by women differ by only about a half a point (the means are 4.70 and 4.14~. These results imply that the worker function ratings in the fourth edition-but not the third edition-can be used to assess sex differences in occupational attainment without undue distortion (see chapter 4 for a discussion of such analyses)
|
From page 192... ...
192 o ._ ._ LO so ._ a' a' 3 CQ By Cal LO o o of ._ so o Cal Cal Cal 1 C O LL1 ~ a' m ~ EM o Ct Lie V]
|
From page 193... ...
193 OO ~ ~ rot red cr 1 Can ...
|
From page 194... ...
Second, some occupations in the fourth edition DOT were analyzed many times, while others were not analyzed at all. Given the heterogeneity of jobs included within a single occupational category (which is confirmed by the substantial "job description" effect on the reliability of worker trait and worker function ratings)
|
From page 195... ...
Moreover, one potential major threat to the usefulness of these data can be discounted on the basis of our analysis: so far as we can tell, the fourth edition worker function variables do not undervalue occupations held mainly by women as the third edition worker function variables apparently did.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.