Validity of Job Descriptions for Physical

Requirements and Work Condition

Information*

By JACK NEWMAN AND SIDNEY A. FINE

United States Employment Service

Summary

PHYSICAL Capacities and Working Conditions are two of eight components used in recent United States Employment Service occupational research designed to develop a new occupational classification structure (2, 9). This research has been carried out with 4,000 jobs, an 18% sample of Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The ratings made for the two components described in this article as well as for Train- ing Time, Aptitudes, Interests, and Temperaments have re- cently been published as an informational tool supplementing the D.O.T. (12). Although satisfactory consistency among ratings was obtained among a group of raters working from job descriptions, the question was, how good was this informa- tion when compared with similar ratings made for the same jobs by actual observation of the jobs in plants? Some indica- tion of consistency with on-the-spot-observations was particu- larly necessary prior to publication. A previous study (10) had indicated satisfactory reliability of Aptitude ratings made similarly from direct and indirect observations. Would the same hold true for Physical Capacities and Working Condi- tions?

* The field work for this study waa performed by George Tilden of the Missouri State Employment Service.

181

182 NEWMAN AND FINE

Physical Capacities and Working Conditions Defined

The Physical Capacities component consists of six factors, and the Working Conditions component of seven factors. These factors resulted from the condensation of 27 Physical Capacities and 27 Working Conditions items that are part of the U. S. Employment Service job analysis procedure (13). An investigation of the manner in which the original items were assigned during job analysis procedures revealed that certain items were generally rated in association with others. For example, when climbing was indicated as present in a job, balancing was usually also indicated. By grouping such com- binations into single factors, the original lists were considera- bly reduced. Thus the Physical Capacities and Working Con- ditions factors used in this research are as follows: Physical Capacities Working Conditions

1. Strength (pushing, pulling, lifting, carrying)

Sedentary work Light work Medium work Heavy work Very heavy work

2. Climbing and balancing 3. Stooping, kneeling, crouching, and

4. Reaching, handling, fingering, and

5 . Talking and hearing 6 . Seeing

crawling

feeling

1. Inside, Outside, or Both 2. Extremes of cold plus tempera-

ture change 3. Extremes of heat plus tempera-

ture change 4. Wet and humid 5. Noise and vibration 6. Hazards 7 . Dust, fumes, odors, toxic condi-

tions, and poor ventilation

Each of the factors is defined generally and with illustrative situations which establish the criteria as to when a factor is present in a job to a critical degree. The following are sample factor definitions:

I . Strength. Light work. Lifting 20 pounds rnazcimum with frequent lift-

ing and/or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds. Also, even though the weight lifted may be only a negligible amount, a job will be rated in this category (a) when it requires walk-

VALIDIN OF JOB DESCRIPTION INFORMATION 183

ing or standing to a significant degree; or (b) when it requires sitting most of the time but entails pushing and pulling of arm and/or leg controls.

Sample situations that would be rated for light work. Dado Operator: constantly stands to set up and operate machines to cut grooves in wooden parts. Continuously lifts, pulls, pushes, and carries lumber, frequently weighing one to five pounds and occasionally as much as 15 to 20 pounds, to feed it into the machine. File Clerk: walks and stands constantly while arranging records in file cabinets, drawers, boxes, etc.; sits occasionally to sort papers; weight lifted does not have to meet criterion because greater part of day is spent walking and standing.

5. Talking and hearing. These activities are defined as (a) tulking-expressing or

exchanging ideas by means of spoken word, (b) hearing-per- ceiving the nature of sounds by the ear.

The ability to talk is important for those job-worker situa- tions in which the individual must impart oral information to clients or to the public, and in those situations in which he must convey detailed or important spoken instructions to other employees accurately, loudly, or quickly.

Hearing is important for those job-worker situations which require the ability to receive detailed information through oral communication, and to make fine discriminations in sounds, such as making fine adjustments on running engines.

Do not rate this factor for those job-worker situations in which the individual may receive oral instructions only a few times daily and does not give any instructions or engage in other than very short conversations.

Sample situations that would be rated for talking and hearing. Information Operator : gives information over telephone in answer to questions. Talking and hearing are therefore essen- tial requirements.

Sample situations that would not be rated for talking and hear-

I a4 NEWMAN AND FINE

ing. Actuary: worker deals primarily with statistical calcula- tions in regard to pensions and insurance plans. Fluent speech and fine hearing ability are not required to carry out this activity.

The Rating Method

The rating method was designed to overcome the major types of rating errors (4) : (a) halo effect, (b) errors of leniency and of central tendency, and (c) logical errors. In order to avoid effects of logical errors in which analysts tend to force all ratings for a single job into a logical pattern, no analyst was permitted to rate any one job for more than one or two components. Having each rating reviewed by at least one ad- ditional analyst provided, in a sense, group ratings which were intended to avoid errors of leniency or of central tendency on the part of the raters (3). The attempt to avoid halo effect was through the use of very specific rating criteria for each factor in which actual job situations are used as bench marks. Halo effects, however, may not be too serious a source of error if traits are considered in terms of a suitably broad back- ground such as performance requirements (1).

Raters are instructed to study the job definition or other pertinent descriptive material, and to rate each job for strength in terms of sedentary, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy. They then rate all of the remaining factors that meet the manual criteria of criticality. The procedure is repeated for the Working Conditions component. Each job is rated as to whether it is inside, outside, or both and then all of the re- maining factors are assigned that meet the criteria.

Manual criteria and rating procedures are made as easy to apply as possible and the specifically defined factors are de- liberately made narrow to avoid ambiguity (6). This tends to simplify the problem of training analysts and proves to be as reliable as the more complex rating forms (8). These same rating methods were used by the field analyst in the present study.

VAUDITY OF JOB DESCRIPTION INFORMATION 185

Design of Comparison Study An occupational analyst who had previously been trained

in the use of the Physical Capacities and Working Conditions Manuals, and who had rated approximately 750 job defini- tions as part of the basic research was given an additional week of intensive training. This included (a) a discussion of the objectives of the research study, (b) techniques involved in making ratings from direct observation, (c) method of com- piling the data, and (d) statistical treatment to be applied. An additional 50 jobs were then rated by the field analyst utilizing job definitions as the source of information. These ratings were reviewed by senior analysts to determine (a) whether the manual procedures were being followed and (b) whether the ratings were reliable in terms of the consensus of research ratings for these same 50 jobs.

During the second stage of training, the field analyst rated 25 jobs in three different industrial establishments on the basis of direct observation of those jobs. These ratings were corre- lated with ratings of the same jobs made by a reviewing ana- lyst under identical conditions. Correlations between Strength ratings was 0.94. For the remaining factors, the chi square test indicated a significance of agreement a t better than the 0.001% level. Reliability in terms of applying manual proce- dures was deemed satisfactory, and the training was con- cluded.

Contacts were then made with industrial establishments in two large midwest industrial centers and permission obtained to observe all available jobs. Table 1 indicates the range and distribution of the job sample observed and rated by the field analyst.

Twenty different types of industrial establishments were visited, and ratings made on 560 different jobs. (Eventually, the total job sample was reduced to 500 by eliminating those jobs for which ratings from the 4,000 on identical jobs were not available.) The distribution of jobs observed is roughly the same as that existing in the various major groupings of

186 NEWMAN AND FINE

DS.1.C. Code

3614

2311 2051

2394 2431 2699

2541

2641

8061 3411 3271 2896

5311

0113 1791

3312

3664

4521 3811

3522

~

TABLE 1 Industrial and Skill Level Distribution of Jobs

Industry

Elec. Motor & Generator

Men’s Suits Bread & Bakery

Canvas Products Millwork Plants Converted Paper

Prod. Office & Store

Fixtures Paper Coating &

Glazing Hospitals Tin Cans Concrete Product Comp. & Liqui-

fied Gases Department

Stores Vegetable Farms Structural Steel

Erection Steel Works &

Roll. Mill Tel. & Tel.

Equipment Air Carriage Scientific Instru-

ments Agricultural

Machinery

Prod.

Totals.. . . . . . . .

- Pro- fess.

0

6

2 7

0 4 1

2

2

22 0 0 0

3

0 0

0

0

1 1

0

46 -

D. 0. T. Major Groups Title and Code

Cler. Sales

1

13

6 7

2 1 1

1

2

2 0 1 1

20

0 0

0

1

0 0

0

58

+rv- ice

2

2

3 2

0 0 0

0

0

16 0 0 0

1

0 0

0

0

0 0

0

~

24

Agri- cul.

3

0

0 0

0 0 0

0

0

0 0 0 0

0

8 0

0

0

0 0

0

- 8

:killed 4-5

11

5 13

1 10 3

5

3

3 2 0 1

3

1 8

15

2

26 12

3

-- 127

- Semi- Sk. 6-7

25

27 15

9 23 1

8

7

2 15 3 9

7

2 4

16

6

5 5

9

-

-- 197 -

Un- Sk. 8-9 - 5

0 27

2 5 3

0

5

6 12 3 7

3

2 4

9

1

1 0

0

-- 95 -

-

Totals

- 62

43 71

14 43 9

16

19

51 29 7

18

37

13 16

39

10

33 18

12

-- 560

* Standard Industrial Classification Manual, Bur. of the Budget. Wash. 1945

the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. As the ratings for a par- ticular plant were completed, copies were forwarded to Wash- ington in order to retain a permanent record of the original field ratings.

VALIDllY OF JOB DESCRIPTION INFORMATION 187

Only those jobs which the field analyst could identify by an appropriate Dictionary title and code were rated. This was done to insure the fact that the observed job was indeed the identical job which previously had been rated as part of the 4,000. All minor variations in the observed job from its Dic- tionary counterpart were indicated by the field analyst. A senior analyst reviewed the original rating to determine whether the added information resulted in a change in rating. This analyst had no knowledge of the field rating given.

Insofar as possible, all field ratings were reviewed and ap- proved by plant administrative and supervisory personnel. Plant personnel retained one copy of the ratings, the field analyst retained a second copy, and the original was forwarded to Washington. Headquarters’ ratings for these same jobs were then copied off onto the work sheets and returned to the field analyst only after the entire study had been received from the field.

Results

The field analyst performed the necessary statistical com- putation, while an outside agency* duplicated the statistical treatment. The strength factor, which is assumed to be con- tinuous and normally distributed throughout the working population, was correlated by means of the Pearson r . Since the remaining factors were rated as critically required or not required, assumptions as to continuousness and normal dis- tribution could not be applied. Therefore, the chi square test of significance of relationship was applied (3). In addition a proportion of overlap correlation coefficient (2) was computed. The results are indicated in Table 2.

The correlations appear to establish the fact that Physical Capacities and Working Conditions ratings made by trained analysts on the basis of occupational information may be used as confidently as though these ratings had been made on the basis of direct observation. Similar conclusions were reached

* Community Studies h e .

188 NEWMAN AND FINE

TABLE 2 Correlation Between Ratings Based on Direct Observation and Ratings Based on

Occupational Information ( n = 600)

Factor

1 Strength ..............................

3 Stooping, Kneeling, Crouching an

4 Reaching, Handling, Fingering, and Feeling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 Talking and Hearing . . . . . . . .

2 Climbing and Balancing.. . . . . .

6 Seeing.. .............................. 2 Extremes of Cold plus Temperature

. . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Wet and Humid.. ..................... 5 Noise and Vibration 6 Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Fumes, Odors, Toxic Conditions, Dust,

and Poor Ventilation.. . . . . . .

Chi Square Si n ihnce Levef

not calculated .001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

Proportion of Overlap Coacient

Pearson r = 0.71) .98

.89

-98 .96 .81

1 .oo .98 .96 .86 .94

.94

in a related study concerned with the rating of Aptitudes (5). The same thought expressed there, that “. . . inferences gen- erated either from direct observation or reading material are mediated through a system of concepts and it is in effect these concepts that are rated” may be operative here as well. Inso- far as these components are concerned, therefore, the ratings of the 4,000 job sample can be used with confidence. To the extent that ratings based on direct observation in the manner described above may be considered an adequate criterion, then the ratings of the 4,000 job sample may be considered as valid.

References

221-228.

Security, May 1955.

York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1948. Chap. IV.

1936. Chap. IX.

1. BINOHAM, W. V., Halo, invalid and valid. J. of App . Psychol., 1939, 23, g2,

2. FINE, S. A. Matching men and jobs-a new look. Labor Market and Employment

3. GHISELLI, E. E., AND BROWN, C. W. Personnel and industrial psychology. New

4. GUILFORD, J. P. Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,

VAuOm OF JOB DESCRIPTION INFORMATION 189

6. MCNEMAR, Q. Psychological statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,

6. JURQENSEN, C. E. Intercorrelations in merit rating scales. J . of App. Psychol.,

7 . PETERS, C. C. AND VAN VOOEHIS, W. E. Statistical procedures and their mathe- matical bases. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1940.

8. STEAD, W. H., SHARTLE, C. L., AND ASSOCIATES. Occupational counseling tech- niques. New York: American Book Co., 1945. Chap. IV.

9. STUDDIFORD, W. S. A new occupational classification structure, Employment Security Review, 1953, 20, B9, 36-39.

10. TRATTNER, M. H., FINE, S. A., AND KUBIS, J. F . A comparison of worker require- ment ratings made by reading job descriptions and by direct job observation. Personnel Psychol., 1955, 8, 6 2 , 183-194.

11. U. S. Department of Labor. Dictionary of occupational titles, definitions of titles, Vol. I. Washington: Govt. Print. Off., 1949.

12. U. S. Department of Labor. Estimates of worker trait requirements for 4,000 jobs as defined i n the dictionary of occupational titles. Washington: Govt. Print. off., Oct. 1956.

13. U. S. Department of Labor. Training and reference manual for job analysis. Washington: Govt. Print. Off., 1944.

1949.

1950,34,24&243.