Cross validation of an abbreviated point job evaluation system.

Davis, Milton K.; Tiffin, Joseph

doi:10.1037/h0058338

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The research literature on evaluation plan convergence is sparse and of arguable relevance to comparable worth evaluation. The majority of previous studies investigated the degree to which different methods captured variance in a common criterion structure (Davis & Tiffin, 1950; Gomez-Mejia et al, 1982; Lawshe, 1945; Robinson, Wahlstrom, & Mecham, 1974). The issue of interest in these studies was relative administrative efficiency, not measurement validity; findings reflected extent of agreement among predictive models rather than among independent measurement methods.…”

Section: Methods Convergencementioning

confidence: 99%

Comparable worth judgments: A measurement properties analysis.

Madigan

1985

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Job evaluation studies have been used by comparable worth advocates as a basis for sex-based pay discrimination litigation and as a vehicle to generate support for pay equity legislation. However, the adequacy of job evaluation measures for determining the relative worth of jobs has not yet been established; previous studies indicate deficiencies on various measurement criteria. The present study examines three methods of comparable worth job evaluation from a psychometric qualities perspective. Evaluation scores for 20 positions in a state agency were generated by four experienced analysts via each method. Reliability, discriminant validity, and convergence of the measures were examined in the context of comparable worth pay classification decision making. Results suggest that (a) reliability coefficients above .95 could still be inadequate for comparable worth job evaluation applications, (b) factor (dimension) redundancy is potentially a major shortcoming of job evaluation measures; (c) evaluation methods differ in terms of measurement quality, and (d) classification decisions are likely to be method dependent.This article is based on the author's dissertation, which was completed at Michigan State University. The advice and support of my committee members, Tom Patten, Ben Schneider, Larry Foster, and Mike Moore are gratefully acknowledged.Requests for reprints should be sent to R.

show abstract

Section: Methods Convergencementioning

confidence: 99%

Comparable worth judgments: A measurement properties analysis.

Madigan

1985

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies have shown that how factors/anchors are weighted makes little difference because many of the factors demonstrate high correlations with each other; thus, the factors might be reduced to a oneor two-factor structure (Davis & Tiffin, 1950;Grant, 1951). Thus, differential weighting schemes may be elegant and play an important role in user acceptance but be irrelevant with regard to the psychometric impact they have on the variance in pay.…”

Section: Weighting Of Factors/pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex Bias in Job Evaluation Procedures

Arvey

1986

Personnel Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Issues pertaining to possible sex bias in job evaluation procedures are outlined and relevant research pertaining to these issues reviewed. Attention is given to possible sex bias in job analysis procedures, choice and weighting of factors, reliability and validity issues, and other concerns. Future research needs are discussed, with particular attention being paid to the reliability and validity aspects of job evaluation instruments.

show abstract

“…Although the definitions of reliability and validity of job evaluations are conceptually straightforward, measuring them is not necessarily so. However, research suggests that different job evaluation methods are, in fact, similar (Atchison & French, 1967;Chesler, 1948;Davis & Tiffin, 1950;Robinson et al, 1974;Snelgar, 1983). This implies that different job evaluation methods have comparable measurement properties.…”

Section: Job Evaluation Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Examination of Similarity between a Costume Designer and a Production Designer: Job Analysis Goes to Hollywood

Williams

Werner

2022

Compensation & Benefits Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the similarity of two unique positions in Hollywood—a costume designer and a production designer. It applies traditional job analysis and job evaluation methods in an industry with little history of doing so. Job data from interviews, questionnaires, and secondary sources were content analyzed for themes and categories. Quantitative data were collected and analyzed for supplemental evidence in comparing the similarity of the two positions. The study incorporated criteria from the California Fair Pay Act of 2016 in the assessment. Eight subject matter experts (SMEs) provided both narrative and quantitative data in response to the comprehensive job analysis. The results of the study show that these positions are sufficiently similar according to the criteria set forth in the California Fair Pay Act, raising issues concerning observed pay disparities between these positions. The findings also support the use of traditional methods of human resource management and industrial and organizational psychology in novel industries with unique positions. Finally, conclusions, limitations and implications are considered.

show abstract

Cross validation of an abbreviated point job evaluation system.

Cited by 8 publications

References 7 publications

Comparable worth judgments: A measurement properties analysis.

Comparable worth judgments: A measurement properties analysis.

Sex Bias in Job Evaluation Procedures

An Examination of Similarity between a Costume Designer and a Production Designer: Job Analysis Goes to Hollywood

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About