Job Classification Approaches and the Implementation of Validity Generalization Results

Abstract

This paper compares two job classification methods for showing the appropriateness of cognitive tests in settings that were not involved in supplying data for a validity generalization analysis. One approach was an elaborate quantitative procedure that involved a lengthy job inventory and a multivariate item analysis. This approach was shown to be highly successful when applied to the responses from 1179 job inventories collected in 54 petroleum‐petrochemical plants from 30 different companies. The other procedure involved simple job classification judgments by supervisors and incumbents. This latter approach was shown to be as effective, but was much less time consuming and costly. Professional and legal implications of these findings are discussed.

Accuracy or consequential validity: which is the better standard for job analysis data?

“…JA methodologies varying in the degree of detail (Cornelius, Schmidt and Carron, 1984;Sackett, Cornelius and Carron, 1981) does not imply that detailed JA produces results that are necessarily equivalent to those of cursory JA. The lack of signi®cant dierences between the outcomes generated by the two JA methodologies may be a function of the rather simple goals of the target JA-based inferences (e.g., create job groupings or families).…”

A Comparison of Holistic Versus Decomposed Rating of Position Analysis Questionnaire Work Dimensions

“…Sackett et al (1981) obtained a significant reduction in the number of job analysis ratings by substituting a paired-comparisons technique (wherein each pair of jobs was rated only once) for a traditional task inventory made up of hundreds of items; their results indicated functionally identical job classification conclusions for the two methods. Finally, Cornelius, Schmidt, et al (1984) found that individuals could correctly classify jobs into one of four a priori job families using only job title information, with success rates comparable to those obtained using discriminant analysis of detailed rating profiles.…”

“…We agree that the goal of making job analysis more cost-effective--and therefore, more widely applicable-is a valuable one. However, because they produce only one rating per job or pair of jobs, radically simplified techniques like those used by Cornelius, Schmidt, et al (1984) and Sackett et al (1981) cannot produce the multiattribute job profiles required for many personnel purposes (e.g., performance appraisal, compensation, training needs analysis). The need for a simplified procedure that reduces the cost and intrusiveness of the job analysis process yet produces multivariate data comparable in quality to that of detailed task-or worker-oriented instruments still exists.…”

The utility of PAQ in relating job behaviours to traits

“…Colbert & Taylor (1978) established some generalization amongst insurance company jobs clustered on company-spgijk Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ) dimensions. Cornelius, Schmidt & Carron (1984) were able to use multiple discriminant analysis (based upon a specijk job analysis instrument) to assign 'similar' jobs into job 'groupings' within which test validities were known to generalize. It is clear from the above studies that the basis of assessments of job similarity (e.g .…”