Task frequency rating accuracy: The effect of task engagement and experience.

Abstract

In this study, researchers examined the effect of task engagement and experience on frequency rating accuracy with an objective measure of task frequency. By contrasting findings from the memory literature on frequency estimation with current task analysis practices, these investigators proposed that task performers and respondents with low levels of experience would generate more accurate frequency estimates compared with task observers and respondents with high levels of experience. Participants were randomly assigned to a task engagement condition (performer vs. observer) as well as to an experience condition (low vs. high). In support of the hypotheses, participants in the performer and low-experience conditions demonstrated greater accuracy in their frequency ratings. These findings were illustrated with several different measures of accuracy. Implications for task analysis research and practices are discussed.Knowledge about human work is obtained through various job analysis procedures. The information gained from a job analysis is necessary for organizations to develop procedures for personnel selection, classification, placement, training, performance appraisal, job evaluation, and job design (McCormick, Jeanneret, & Mecham, 1972). One critical component of many job analytic procedures involves the frequency with which tasks are performed (Harvey, 1991). These ratings are often used to compute a criticality index that identifies the essential tasks performed in a job. In addition to job analysis, task frequency ratings have been used by researchers in other areas such as performance appraisals (e.g.,

Job analysis ratings and criterion‐related validity: Are they related and can validity be used as a measure of accuracy?

“…The research on SME job tenure has yielded mixed results, with some finding important differences as a function of tenure (Borman et al, 1992;Goldstein, Noonan, & Schneider, 1992;Landy & Vasey, 1991;Richman & Quinones, 1996;Tross & Maurer, 2000), while others finding no difference (Cornelius & Lyness, 1980;Green & Stutzman, 1986;Mullins & Kimbrough, 1988;Schmitt & Cohen, 1989). Most of this research focused on task ratings though, with only two studies comparing KSAO ratings (Goldstein et al, 1992;Tross & Maurer, 2000).…”

“…Incumbents also demonstrated the lowest intra‐rater reliability. On the other hand, Richman and Quinones () found that incumbents were more accurate than observers (pseudo supervisors) when rating task frequency. Others (Manson, Levine, & Brannick, ; Sanchez, ) have found there to be little difference between incumbents and supervisors across task inventory ratings, leading them to conclude that the choice of respondent will have little impact on results.…”

Carelessness and Discriminability in Work Role Requirement Judgments: Influences of Role Ambiguity and Cognitive Complexity

“…A wide range of variables has been examined for their potential relationships to requirement ratings within work analysis research. For example, research has investigated variables such as demographics and work experience (e.g., Landy & Vasey, 1991; Tross & Maurer, 2000), job satisfaction and involvement (e.g., Conte, Dean, Ringenbach, Moran, & Landy, 2005), job performance (e.g., Conley & Sackett, 1987; Sanchez, Prager, Wilson, & Viswesvaran, 1998), and task engagement or liking (e.g., Love, Bishop, & Scionti, 1991; Richman & Quinones, 1996). Unfortunately, the general consensus regarding the findings of this extensive empirical exploration is that the collective results have been rather equivocal (Dierdorff & Wilson, 2003).…”

Assessing Training Needs: Do Work Experience and Capability Matter?

“…The specificity of work experience can be captured at the task, job, and organization levels using operationalizations of amount (e.g., number of times a task was performed), time (e.g., job tenure), and type or quality of experience (Quiñones, Ford, & Teachout, 1995). Richman and Quiñones (1996) further emphasized the importance of how work experience is assessed and noted that simple measures of job tenure, although prevalently used, provide only a narrow definition of work experience. In our study, work experience was assessed using two modes of measurement at the job level of specificity: amount of actual work role experience and the length of time spent in the work role.…”