Commentary: A Closer Look at Task Analysis: Reactions to Wang, Schnipke, and Witt

Abstract

In the Spring 2005 issue, Wang, Schnipke, and Witt provided an informative description of the task inventory approach that centered on four functions of job analysis. The discussion included persuasive arguments for making systematic connections between tasks and KSAs. But several other facets of the discussion were much less persuasive. This article offers a critique in the form of four counterarguments: (1) The job analysis method must be appropriate to the nature of the work; (2) The capacity of the task analysis inventory method to describe a complex profession is questionable; (3) Task importance ratings are inherently deficient; and (4) Careful generation of KSAs does not assure systematic item development, which is also necessary in the chain of validity evidence.

Examining Contextual Effects in a Practice Analysis: An Application of Dual Scaling

“…This concern for context‐free ratings also applies to traditional practice analysis designs that survey incumbents on the importance (or frequency) of various KSAs. Several authors have criticized the omission of contextual components in traditional practice analyses (Colton, Kane, Kingsbury, & Estes, 1991; Kane, 1997; LaDuca, 1994; LaDuca, 2006; LaDuca, Downing, & Henzel, 1995; Raymond, 2001, 2002, 2005). LaDuca (1994) outlines a validation strategy for professional licensure examinations that addresses the need for test developers to define and incorporate not only the competent practitioner's cognitive abilities, but also the specific social character of the profession for which the examination would signal competence.…”