An Empirical Test of a Trait‐oriented Job Analysis Technique

Lopez, Felix M.; Kesselman, Gerald A.; Lopez, Felix E.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1981.tb00490.x

Cited by 28 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Foti & Lord, 1987;Lord et al, 1982). This instrument contains traits relevant to a large range of occupations, including those requiring leadership skills (Lopez, Kesselman, & Lopez, 1981). Interrater agreement in the traits selected as relevant to performance meet professional standards (F. Lopez et al, 1981).…”

Section: Task-specific Self-esteemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Limiting Behavior in Women

Dickerson¹,

Taylor

2000

Group & Organization Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research suggests that some women may be reluctant to pursue certain tasks because they lack confidence in their ability to succeed. This study was an exploration of the basis of this type of self-limiting behavior. Global self-esteem and task-specific self-efficacy were used as predictors of task choice and task preference. Results suggested that task-specific self-efficacy was a stronger predictor of whether a woman would choose a leadership task rather than a group-member task. In addition, task-specific self-efficacy predicted the strength of the woman's preference for the group-member task. The implications of this finding and recommendations for shifting task-specific self-efficacy for leadership roles are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Task-specific Self-esteemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Limiting Behavior in Women

Dickerson¹,

Taylor

2000

Group & Organization Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This fundamental distinction between JA versus JS was re¯ected in the de®nition of JA oered by Harvey (1991, p. 74), which explicitly excluded speculations regarding`job requirements' that are couched in terms of inferred worker KS requirements and hypothetical AO traits. Unfortunately, some authors persist in choosing to blur this distinction by using the term`job analysis' to refer to both the description of work, as well as the process of inferring worker-trait requirements,`competencies,' and similar speculative judgments (e.g., Fleishman and Mumford, 1991;Hughes and Prien, 1988;Lopez, Kesselman and Lopez, 1981). Numerous reasons exist for arguing against this practice (see Harvey, 1991, pp. 75±78 for a more detailed discussion), including the types and magnitudes of inferences required, the cognitive decision making processes involved, the amounts and levels of speci®city of information that must be considered, and perhaps most important, the fundamental dierences in the types of properties being rated (i.e., properties of jobs, expressed in terms of work behaviors and contextual characteristics, in the case of job analysis, versus properties of people, expressed in terms of hypothetical psychological traits, in the case of job speci®cation).…”

Section: Speci®c Points Of Contentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Yes Virginia, thereis an objective reality in job analysis

Harvey

Wilson

2000

J. Organiz. Behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We fundamentally disagree with Sanchez and Levine (this issue) on several issues. Terminologically, we are troubled by their failure to differentiate between the descriptive process of rating verifiable work characteristics (i.e., job analysis) versus the subjective process of inferring worker ability and ‘other’ (AO) requirements (i.e., job specification). Although ‘consequential validity’ is crucial for evaluating job specifications, it is largely irrelevant for assessing properly conducted job analyses. Ontologically, we reject their relativist view that an objective reality does not exist when describing work activities. When verifiable descriptors are rated using sound rating scales, independent judges can definitively assess position rating accuracy; such a review constitutes all the ‘validity’ evidence needed for the job analysis per se. We discuss a number of additional concerns, including the way in which practitioners deal with true cross‐position ratings variability, and the role of holistic inferences. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…Previous research has shown that job analyses help to accurately identify the personality traits that are job relevant, and thus enhances personality test validity via first identifying those personality traits that are content valid (Levine, Ash, & Bennett, 1980;Lopez, Kesselman, & Lopez, 1981;Tett et al, 1991). Thus, an extensive job analysis was performed for the present study on the bank teller job class for which the organization was enhancing its human resource selection process.…”

Section: Job Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Item‐level Frame‐of‐reference Effects in Personality Testing: An investigation of incremental validity in an organizational setting

Bing

Davison

Smothers

2014

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent line of research has investigated the frame‐of‐reference effect on personality scale scores, in which self‐report personality items are contextualized to the specific performance setting (e.g., work, school) within which the performance criterion is gathered. Contextualization has been shown to increase both the reliability and the criterion‐related validity of the personality scale scores by facilitating the self‐presentation of respondents, and by more closely measuring the personality construct relevant to the performance domain. The current research extends this area of personality research in two ways. First, this study tests the generalizability of the effectiveness of item‐level contextualization within an organizational setting. Second, this study also provides the necessary test of the incremental validity of this contextualized approach to personality measurement above and beyond the traditional, noncontextualized approach. The results confirm that a work‐specific personality measure, contextualized at the item level, adds to the prediction of job performance above and beyond that obtained by a noncontextual measure of the same personality traits. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

show abstract

An Empirical Test of a Trait‐oriented Job Analysis Technique

Cited by 28 publications

References 14 publications

Self-Limiting Behavior in Women

Self-Limiting Behavior in Women

Yes Virginia, thereis an objective reality in job analysis

Item‐level Frame‐of‐reference Effects in Personality Testing: An investigation of incremental validity in an organizational setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About