Accuracy in job analysis: toward an inference-based model

Abstract

Although the accuracy of job analysis information is critically important, standards for accuracy are not clear. Researchers have recently begun to address various aspects of job analysis accuracy by investigating such things as potential sources of inaccuracy in job analysis as well as attempting to reconceptualize our notions of job analysis accuracy. This article adds to the debate by first discussing how job analysis accuracy has been conceptualized. This points to difficulties in the prevalent ‘true score’ model upon which many of these discussions have been based. We suggest that discussions of job analysis accuracy would benefit from a consideration of the validity of job analysis inferences, as a complement to the more traditional focus on the validity of job analysis data. Toward this end, we develop a model of the inferences made in the job analysis process, outline some of the ways these inference could be tested, and discuss implications of this perspective. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Can training improve the quality of inferences made by raters in competency modeling? A quasi-experiment.

“…In regard to rating stimuli, Morgeson and Campion (2000) distinguished between direct and indirect methods of estimating knowledge, skill, and ability (KSA) requirements (see also Gatewood & Feild, 2001, pp. 367-380).…”

An Examination of the Validity and Incremental Value of Needed-at-Entry Ratings for a Customer Service Job

“…For example, researchers have operationalised validity in terms of interrater reliability or agreement, discriminability between jobs, factor structures, and mean ratings (Morgeson & Campion, 1997). Morgeson and Campion (2000) suggested that researchers should focus on the validity of inferences drawn from job analysis information, much like personnel researchers have been encouraged to focus on the validity of inferences made from applicant scores on selection measures (e.g. Binning & Barrett, 1989;Guion, 1998;Schmitt & Landy, 1993).…”

“…Binning & Barrett, 1989;Guion, 1998;Schmitt & Landy, 1993). We follow the guidance of Morgeson and Campion (2000) in our attempt to assess the validity of NAE ratings.…”

Assessing Training Needs: Do Work Experience and Capability Matter?

“…Similar to most prior job analysis research, the focus of the Ford et al (1993) study was restricted to ratings of job tasks. Other types of work descriptors are certainly salient to training (e.g., skills), and their use can have different rating implications (Dierdorff & Rubin, 2006;Morgeson & Campion, 2000). For example, asking individuals to evaluate attribute requirements (skills) in comparison to activity requirements (tasks) is likely to promote ratings that are more self-referent than job-referent (Morgeson, Delaney-Klinger, Mayfield, Ferrara, & Campion, 2004).…”

“…This assumes, of course, that the TNA ratings pro-RATINGS OF TRAINING NEEDS vided by job incumbents are indeed valid or accurate. Important to note is that the validity and accuracy of work requirement ratings can be viewed from several perspectives, ranging from the quality of inferences drawn from the data (Morgeson & Campion, 2000) to the eventual use of the data ("consequential validity"; Sanchez & Levine, 2000). Our study did not seek to examine the validity or accuracy of TNA ratings but rather investigated individual-level variables to test whether they could account for variance in task-and skill-related TNA ratings.…”