USVI Public Records

Document text

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 221 596 T 820 634 AUTHOR Mann, Walter G., Jr. TITLE A Multipurpose Analysis of Clerical and Administrative Positions in the U.S. Virgin Islands. INSTITUTION Office of Personnel Management, Washington, D.C. REPORT NO PRR- 80-29 PUB DATE Sep 80 NOTE 86p.; Appendices contain small print that may not reproduce clearly. EDRS PRICE MFO1 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS Adults; *Clerical Occupations; Evaluation Methods; Factcr Analysis; Government Employees; *Job Analysis; *Job Placement; *Managerial Occupations; Questionnaires; Rating Scales IDENTIFIERS *Virgin Islands ABSTRACT This report demonstrates the feasibility of covering a large number of classes in a single study that has both Classification and selection applications. A job analysis of clerical and administrative positions in the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands was accomplished by means of a single questionnaire comprised of 264 items of the following types: 31 knowledge, 104 skill or ability, 99 activity, 15 job evaluation, and 15 biographical. A quantitative procedure utilizing activity data was developed to assure that positions are properly assigned to classes. Factor analysis of skill and ability ratings identified seven job domains that can be readily operationalized in the form of written or performance tests. The inferential leap from job analysis data to test content was minimized by including statements of test behavior in the questionnaire; moreover, the validity of subject-matter-expert ratings of skills and abilities was demonstrated by correlating them with time-spent ratings of work activities. A factor analysis of 15 job evaluation scales produced 2 factors (Scope and Complexity) that can be used to predict the grades of these types of positions. Selection and classification recommendations for the Virgin Islands and potential usefulness of the methodology for other jurisdictions are discussed. (Author) RRARAARAEEKAREEREKEEEERRARRERRRERERKRERREREKRREKKREEKREKEEEKREEEERKERKKKRERREEERE sf Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made ® * from the original document. . RRARARRAKARRARARERERARRREREERERKRREKREREREERKERERRERRREEEEKEREREKKEEAKKREEREKKKEEK a ED221596 me Sry Personne! Research Report 80-29 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION ENTER (ERK ‘PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY _b.G. Mena, Jt. TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).” A Multipurpose Analysis of Clerica! and Administrative Positions in the U.S. Virgin Islands United States Staffing Office of Services Personnel Group Management PRR- 80-29 A MULTIPURPOSE ANALYSIS OF CLERICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS IN THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Walter G. Mann, Jr. U.S. Office of Personnel Managment Personnel Research and Development Center State and Local Branch Washington, D.C. September 1980 J A MULTIPURPOSE ANALYSIS OF CLERICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS IN THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS ABSTRACT This report demonstrates the feasibility of covering a large number of classes in a single study that has both classification and selection applications. A job analysis of clerical and administrative positions in the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands (V.I.) was accomplished by means of a single questionnaire comprised of 264 items of the following types: 31 knowledge, 104 skill or ability, 99 activity, 15 job evalu- ation, and 15 biographical. A quantitative procedure utilizing activity data was developed to assure that positions are properly assigned to classes. Factor analysis of skill and ability ratings identified seven job domains that can be readily operationalized in the form of written Or performance tests. The inferential leap from job analysis data to test content was minimized by including statements of test behavior in the guestionnaire; moreover, the validity of subject-matter-expert ratings of skills and abilities was demonstrated by correlating them with time-spent ratings of work activities. A factor analysis of 15 job evaluation scales produced two factors (Scope and Complexity) that can be used to predict the grades of these types of positions. Selec- tion and classification recommendations for the Virgin Islands and potential usefulness of the methodology for other jurisdictions are discussed. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The study reported herein was made possible by an IPA grant admin- istered by the New York Regional Office of the U.S. Civil Service Commission. The author gratefully acknowledges the indispensable assistance of Peggy Peterson, who helped develop the format of tables and produced a high-quality typing of the narrative. Last, but by no means least, the author wishes to express his gratitude to the Personnel Officers of the U.S. Virgin Islands agencies. Their cooperation and goodwill made this study possible while the author was on an IPA mobility assignment. CONTENTS Purpose Domain of Jobs Review of the Literature Overview METHOD Questionnaire Procedure Sample Analysis RESULTS Classification Applications Work Activity Dimensions Validity of Current Classifications Job Evaluation Dimensions Prediction of Grade Selection Applications Validation of Ratings of Skills and Abilities Important Job Behavior Dimensions Skills and Abilities for Specific Classes Feasibility of Establishing Minimum Qualifications by Means of a Quantitative Procedure RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE VIRGIN ISLANDS Class and Grade Determination Test Development RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OTHER JURISDICTIONS SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION REFERENCE NOTES REFERENCES APPENDIXES A. Job Analysis Questionnaire and Instructions for Administering Questionnaire B. Memorandum to Department and Agency Heads Reguesting Participation in the Study C. Computer Print-outs of Factor Analysis Data for 99 Activities 6 CONTENTS (Continued) Computer Print-out of Factor Analysis Data for 15 Job Evaluation Scales Computer Print-Outs of Factor Analysis Data for 104 Skills and Abilities Number of Positions in Study by Classification Comparison of Factors Obtained in Five Studies of Clerical Work Current Classification of Positions Compared to Classification of Positions According to Multiple Discriminant Analysis Discriminatory Indices of 20 Activity Factors Percent Incumbents Rating an Ability or Skill Important for Distinguishing Between Satisfactory and Superior Performance Recommended Item Types for Several Classes A MULTIPURPOSE ANALYSIS OF CLERICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS IN THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Purpose In December of 1976 the Personnel Office of the U.S. Virgin Islands (V.I.) initiated a job analysis of clerical and administrative positions for the purposes of (a) identifying and defining important skill and abil- ity domains that can be measured by tests, (b) developing a quantitative procedure for assigning positions to classes, and (c) developing a quanti- tative procedure for assigning grades to classes of positions. It was intended that the study generate information about clerical and adminis- trative classes which would assist V.I. in the development of selection instruments and clasification procedures. Although different purposes were served by different information gathered at the same time, one of the unique features of the study is the interplay of the various types of data. This study was also intended as a demonstration of: -- the cost and time effectiveness of applying job analysis proce- dures simultaneously to multiple classifications and agencies; the usefulness of multivariate statistics such as discriminant, regression, and factor analyses; and the value of a single job analysis questionnaire for both selection and classification purposes. Domain of Jobs Eleven government agencies operating under the same classification system participated in the present job analysis: Consumer Services Admin- istration, Law Enforcement Protection Agency, Office of Highway Safety, Personnel Office, and the Departments of Education, Finance, Health, Labor, Public Safety, Public Works, and Social Welfare. Each agency was asked to administer the questionnaire to full-time clerical and administrative employees, GS-1 to 24. Information concerning 78 classes was collected (see Table l). The approach used in this study to define a population first identi- fies a fairly broad job family (in this case, GS-1 to 24, Clerical and Administrative). After the data are collected, the population is defined quantitatively in terms of work activities. This approach has several advantages over the typical approach: -- It produces a larger sample. (This is important for classes having few incumbents. ) -- It allows for making comparisons between classes, including testing the hypothesis that all the posi- tions in a class are correctly classified. -- It provides a time-efficient, cost-effective means for studying a large number of classes simultaneously. 1 TABLE 1 Number of Positions in Study By Classification Position Classification Number of Positions in Study Accountant I Accountant II Accountant III Accounting Supply Analyst Administrator Administrative Officer I Administrative Officer II Administrative Officer III Administrative Secretary I Administrative Secretary II Alcohol Control Inspector Assistant Coordinator Assistant Departmental Personnel Officer Assistant Superintendent, Plant Auditor Technician Bookkeeper III Bookkeeping Machine Operator Chauffeur Cnief Dietician Chief Inspector Chief Payroll Audit Clerk Chief Pharmacologist Chief, Records & Communication Claims Adjustor I Claims Adjustor II Clerk III Clerk Stenographer Clerk Typist I Clerk Typist II Clerk Typist III Collection Clerk Communication Technician Department Personnel Officer Director Enforcement Officer I Fiscal Officer Food Service Superintendent Internal Investigative Agent Junior Auditor Junior Management Assistant Junior Tax Records Clerk Keypunch Operator I Legal Assistant Legal Secretary I Legal Secretary II Loan Application Clerk Medical Secretary Messenger Metrologist Keypunch Operator II (Cont inued ) l l 5 l 3 l l 5 6 5 2 2 l l l l l 4 2 l l l l l l 2 l 2 l l 6 l l l l 3 4 l l l 6 3 l l l l l l l 2 l l TABLE 1 (Continued) Number of Positions Position Classification in Study Payroll Audit Clerk I Payroll Audit Clerk II PBX Operator Personnel Clerk I Personnel Records Clerk II Project Coordinator, PAL Property and Procurement Officer I Public Information & Education Officer Receptionist Research Analyst I Revenue Audit Clerk II Sanitarian II Senior Auditor Senior Auditor Clerk Senior Management Analyst Statistical Clerk II Superintendent, SW Superintendent, Plant Operations Superintendent, Correctional Treatment Tax Accountant & Recording Clerk Tax Accountant & Recording Clerk I Tax Accountant & Recording Clerk II Tax Return Examiner I Teller (Collections) IV Vouchering Clerk IL Voucher Examiner II Voucher Examiner III Voucher Examiner IV Ne ee ee ee eee Clerical and administrative classes were chosen for the present study primarily because of the relatively large number of .~ployees in these classes, which in turn is related to such things as the number of subjects available for job analysis (the statistical procedures utilized reauire large samples and cross-validation), the number of vacancies, and the number of subjects available for a criterion-related validity study (if undertaken). Other considerations favoring the choice of clerical classes included the availability of test items in V.I. and elsewhere likely to be found appropriate (which would obviate the need for expensive and lengthy test development) and the guality of job analysis materials available (which would obviate the need for ex densive and lengthy development of 3s job analysis guestionnaire). A final consideration concerned the appro- priateness of content validation, which is important because criterion- related validation will be infeasible for most, if not all, of these classes. Tests for entry-level clerical positions are possibly more amenable to content validation than are the tests for other entry-level positions. Review of the Literature The review of the literature was directed primarily towards extract- ing relevant: statements from the many different sources available. Id Selection of documents to be reviewed was according to two touchstones: comprehensive (did the particular document add anything, vis-a-vis other documents already selected?) and current (clerical and administrative jobs have changed appreciaoly over the last 20 years). Statements were drawn from documents when they were judged to be (a) independent from one another, (b) understandable to both psychometricians and incumbents, (c) behaviorally oriented and (d) comprehensive in coverage of specific domains. Statements describing the skill or ability aspect of work behaviors were drawn from the following documents: Fleishman (1972), Kane (1973), Kintop & Mussio (1974), Manpower Administration (1973), McClelland (Note 1), and Page (1975). Additional skill and ability Statements were written to describe item types described by Dailey and Shaycoft (1961) and Psychological Corporation (1976). These targeted skills and abilities will later be referred to as “promis!ng item types." Activity or task statements were drawn from Manpower Administration, McClelland, and Page. Job evaluation statements were drawn from the USCSC factor-ranking, benchmark system (Anderson and Corts, 1973). Anderson and Corts ordered their statements into nine subfactors found important in civilian and military agencies. (These subfactors incidentally are not the result of factor analysis but only rubrics given to job require- ments.) Of the nine subfactors, eight were used in the present study; Personal Contacts was dropped because it was judged, for clerical and administrative personnel, to be identical to Purpose of Personal Contacts (which was retained). Five of the eight subfactors were measured by more than one scale, because sufficient items were available and this would tend to enhance reliability. Overview A major objective of the study was to develop a guantitative procedure for assigning positions to classes. This procedure was used to assess the validity of the current classification of V.I. clerical and administrative positions. The quantitative procedure compares the dif- ferences between classes, in terms_of time spent on work activities, to the differences within classes. Some overlap of work activities between classes is to be expected, but when the activities performed in a posi- tion more closely resemble the activities done in positions in other classes, the credibility of the classifications must be guestioned. If the current classifications are not valid, the information concerning skills and abilities for pa~ticular classes will suffer. Another objective was to develop a quantitative procedure for assign- ing an appropriate grade for a position or class of positions, based on 15 scales purporting to measure eight job fai.tors: Complexity, Scope and Effect, Knowledge and Skill Reguired by the Job, Guidelines, Work Environ- ment, Physical Reguirements, Supervisory controls, and Purpose of Personal Contacts. A third objective of the study was to identify skills and abilities, measures of which could legitimately be used to screen or rank applicants. A written test measuring a skill or ability may be content valid if it is operationally defined in terms of observable aspects of work behaviors. Skill and ability statements were written in behavioral te:ms, and some of these statements described test content, so that there was a direct link (i.e., no inferential leaps) between test and job. Incumbents whose classifications had been validated rated skills and abilities in terms of (a) whether they were needed for barely acceptable performance and (b) their importance for differentiating satisfactory from superior work- ers. This information was then used to specify item types for screening and ranking applicants for particular classes. A supplementary research objective of the present study was to test the assumption that incumbents can validly make the types of importance ratings described immediately above. Typically, the judgments of a subject matter expert (SME) are accepted at face value and are not subjected to verification. Since there are limits to judamental capacities, it is reasonable in a job analysis study based on judgments to collect evidence to substantiate a subject's ability. Concurrent validation was undertaken by correlating criticality/importance ratings for each of the 104 skills and abilities with the time spent ratings for the 99 activities. The use of time spent ratings as the criterion is based on research that incum- bents can validly rate work activities for amount of time spent (Cristal, Note 2). The basic evidence for the validity of the criticality/importance ratings would come from a sufficient number of significant correlations. The degree of correlation is not important, because it is not assumed that there is a one-to-one relationship between the importance of a skill or ability and time spent on relevant job activities. Furthermore, it should not be expected that the importance of each skill or ability should corre- late with the time spent on each activity. There should be a significant correlation only when the activity is relevant to the skill or ability. For example, activities such as drafting letters, memos, and reports are logically related to proper grammar and punctuation. On the other hand, an activity such as supervising white-collar employees is not logically related to ability to type 40 WPM. METHOD Questionnaire The Job Analysis Questionnaire (see Appendix A) contains 24 pages divided into five major parts: background information (15 items), knowledges (31), skills and abilities (104), job evaluation scales (15), and activities (99). Tne items in the Questionnaire were taken from other guestionnaires that had recently been developed. This pool of items was reviewed by two personnel psychologists to determine whether it was appro- priate for V.I. in terms of comprehensiveness of coverage and understand- ability by subjects. The Questionnaire was pretested in two agencies, the Department of Health and the Personnel Office. As part of the pretest, subjects were instructed to suggest additional items for the Question- naire. On the basis of the pretest, the Questionnaire underwent extensive revision, especia]iy with regard to instructions. The background section contains questions that could be used to iden- tify the sample or interpret the results, e.g., agency, length of experi- ence, education level, year of birth, sex, and class title. The next section of the Questionnaire contains various knowledge statements that were considered to have potential as selective placement factors for clerical or administrative positions. Each statement was cated on a four-point scale developed by the author: "No Knowledge Reguired," “Conversant Knowledge of Terms," "Journeyman Knowledge of Procedures," and "Mastery of Principles and Procedures." No attempt was made to analyze the data generated by this scale, because at least one- fourta of the respondents did not appear to understand the scale. For example, one secretary indicated that her position required a mastery of principles and procedures of real estate. 5 Ip The section on skills and abilities includes statements referring to behaviors easily measurable by a test (e.g., "Ability to understand words commonly used in office memos"), as well as other behaviors needed to define the job domain (e.g., "Ability to write in a clear, well-organized, and complete style"). Coverage was given not only to the type of behavior but also to the skill level. Two scales were used. The first, "Needed for barely acceptable performance," was designed to identify abilities or skills needed for screening applicants. The second, "Important for supe- rior performance," was designed to identify abilities or skills important for ranking applicants. The 15 job evaluation scales were designed to measure eight job factors: Scope and Effect, Complexity, Knowledge and Skill Required by the Job, Guidelines, Work Environment, Physical Requirements, Supervisory Controls, and Purpose of Personal Contacts. Each scale had from three to five statements. Incumbents checked the one statement in each scale that best described their respective positions. Each of the 99 work activity statements was rated on a six-point scale, ranging from "None; I never do this" to "More than 4 hours per day." These activity statements (e.g., "Takes the proceedings of hearings or meetings with a steno machine") are, in the opinion of the author, between task and duty statements in terms of specificity. Procedure The heads of all V.I. government agencies were sent letters request- ing their participation in the study and asking them to name a project coordinator (see Appendix B). Coordinators were asked to determine tre number of full-time clerical and administrative personnel, GS-1 and 24, in their agencies. Sufficient guestionnaires were printed and delivered to each coordinator, along with instructions for administering. (These instructions and the letter to the agency are printed in Appendix A.) The questionnaire covld be completed anonymously, if the incumbent so desired. The population was limited to full-time clerical and administrative employees in General Schedule grades 1 through 24 who had been in their jobs more than three months, and who worked in one of the 11 agencies that participated in the study. GS-24 was selected as the top grade because beyond this, to the limit of GS-30, are higher level professionals and managers. The General Schedule was chosen because it excluded those not of interest in the present study, such as blue-collar workers, police officers, firefighters, nurses, doctors, and teachers. The sample consisted of 160 clerical and administrative employees, representing 78 classes and 11 agencies. The individuals in the sample had been with the government anywhere from 3 months to 31 years (mean = 8 1/2 years), ranged from 18 to 60 years of age (mean = 36), had been in class from 3 months to 20 years (median = 4 years), ranged from GS-1 to 24 (median = 15), and had supervisors who ranged from GS-15 to 30 (median = 24). Fifty-six percent judged a high school diploma to be necessary to perform the duties of their job in a satisfactory manner, while forty-two percent thought higher education was called for. In this sample 77% were female, 96% had a high school diploma, and 13% had completed at least four years of college. In addition, 22% of the incumbents considered themselves jJourneymen, 8% master craftsmen, 18% lead workers, and 25% supervisors. Accurate population data were not available. Therefore, no compari- son of sample and population data was attempted. The sample did not appear to be unrepresentative of clerical and administrative personnel in V.I. Analysis To determine the extent to which the current classification of posi- tions is valid, the work activity data were factor analyzed (to reduce the number of activities to a reasonable number) and then subjected to a multi- ple discriminant analysis, with position class as the grouping variable. To establish a procedure for assigning an appropriate grade to a position or class of positions, the 15 job evaluation scales were factor analyzed (to reduce them to a smaller number and to test the hypothesis of Anderson and Corts that they measure 5 job factors). The resultant factor scores were then used to predict grade by means of multiple regression analysis. To identify skills and abilities, measures of which could appropri- ately be used to screen or rank applicants, two steps were taken. The importance data were factor analyzed, in order to delineate clusters of abilities. Within each cluster those skills and abilities rated important or critical by at least 50% of the SME's were used to identify item types. To test the assumption that incumbents can in fact make the type of judgments that underlie the importance ratings of skills and abilities, those ratings were correlated with the time spent ratings for work activities. RESULTS Classification Applications Work Activity Dimensions The time-spent ratings on the 99 activities are basic to the study. They explicate the type of work done and serve to support or enhance other data analyses. In addition, grouping activities (by factor analyzing the time-spent data) produces more meaningful and reliable results. Twenty principal component factors were extracted from the intercor- relations of the time-spent ratings for the 160 subjects and subjected to orthogonal varimax rotation. These 20 factors accounted for 70% of the variance among the 99 scales, with none of the factors accounting for more than 10% nor less than 2%. Information concerning the factor analysis is in Appendix C. The author named Factor I General Administration. It contains 16 activities with a loading of at least .5. Two activities loaded .7 or greater on this factor: "Plans and organizes office practices and proce- dures" and “Advises high-level decisionmakers." Factor II was named General Clerical. It contains 12 activities with a loading of at least .5. Three activities loaded .7 or greater on this factor: "Types letters and reports according to standard procedures," "Types information on forms," and “Arranges for appointments, events, meetings, or travel arrangements." Factor III was named Auditing. It contains seven activities with a loading of at least .5. Four activities loaded .7 or greater on this fac- tor, the two highest being: "Makes budget estimates" and "Periodically reviews expenditures to help keep the organization within limitations.” Factor IV was named Inventory and Stockkeeping. It contains five activities with a loading of at least .5. Two activities loaded .7 or greater on this factor: “Investigates availability of equipment and approves cost estimates of equipment" and "Contracts for sale, purchase, and delivery of goods or services." Factor V was named Mailing. It contains six activities with 2 load- ing of at least .5. Only one activity ioaded .7 or greater on this factor: "Folds paper or stuffs envelopes by hand." Factor VI was named Bookkeeping. It contains four activities with a loading of .7 or greater, the two highest being: “Operates machine to copy and post data, make computations, and compile records" and "Operates machine to proof transactions and keeps qualitative records accounts." Factor VII was named Inspection. It contains four activities with loadings of .5 or greater. Two activities loaded .7 or greater: “Conducts investigations to determine compliance with laws or regulations" and "In- spects establishments with respect to compliance with laws." The remaining fac_ors had only one to three activities that loaded .5 or greater. The labels of those factors that could be named are listed in Table 2, column one, along with the above factors. The names of factors from other studies are listed in the next four co’umns. TABLE 2 Comparison of Factors Obtained in Five Studies of Clerical Work Virgin Islands Page Prien Thomas Chalupsky (1975) (1965) (1952) (1962) I. General Admin- . Supervision Supervision IV. Planning Supervision istration - Coordinating Executive and Super- Secretarial vision Assistance . General . General Typing Typing Typing Typing and Clerical Rout ine General Clerical Clerical Filing Filing Filing . Receptionist Receptionist . Typing Sten- cils . Auditing Inventory and . Maintaining Stock .- Inventory Stockkeeping Inventory Handling and Book- Keeping . Mailing . Mailing 10. Mailing (Cont inued ) 8 TABLE 2 (Continued) Comparison of Factors Obtained in Five Studies of Clerical Work Virgin Islands Page (1975) Thomas (1952) Prien (1965) Chalupsky (1962) . Numerical Computation . Bookkeeping and Billing Bookkeeping Inspection . Training . Data Analysis . Language Translation . Chart Making . Material . Operating EDP . Cashiering 6. Weighing 14. Keypunching Equipment Cashiering . Claims Adjusting . Public Relations XVIII. . Taking and Typing Stenotype Notes Taking and Typing Shorthand Notes Steno 3. Bookkeeping Il. - Manpower . Communica- Liss Listing and Com- piling VIII. Calculation and Clerical Accounting Records Maintenance . Analysis and Reporting of Business Data . Operation of Data Process- ing Equipment . Cash Operating Accounts Communica- cations tion and Public Relations . Computation D. and Book- Keeping Communica- tions and Public Relations Validity of Current Classifications To determine whether sufficient overlap among current classes might exist so as to warrant combining two or more of them, multiple discrimi- nant analysis (Rulon, 1951) was undertaken. To reduce chance error, only those classes that had at least three positions with complete data were used. This left 80 positions and 12 classes, with a median of 5 positions per class. The data from this study most relevant to classification are time- spent ratings for activities. To reduce chance errors among the 99 activities, it was decided to use factor scores based on the time-spent ratings to classify positions. Since 20 factors had been derived from the 99 time-spent ratings, there were 20 factor scores per position. The multiple discriminant analysis (MDA) comprised the following steps: (1) A discriminant function was computed for each of the 12 classes. Each discriminant function is a set of 2) weights (one for each of the factor scores). The function gave the greatest weight to those factors that had the highest ratio of interclass differences relative to intraclass differences. Least weight was given to those activity factors where the ratio of inter- class differences to intrac’ass differences was smallest. Using these discriminant functions, 12 scores (one for each class) were computed for each position. The higher the score for a position, the closer the activity profile of that pesi- tion resembles the activity profile for a specific class. Using the scores developed in (2), positions were assigned to the class that they most closely resembled. Thus, the activity profile of each Administrative Officer II position was statistically compared with the profiles for each of the 12 classes and assigned to the class it most closely resembled. If it was assigned to its or .ginal class, that is evidence that the position is correct .y classified. If it was assigned to some other class, that is evidence of misclassification. MDA assigned 69% of the positions to their original classes. By visual inspection, errors (i.e., discrepancies) in classification were randomly distributed in terms of grade: some misclassifications were at a higher grade and some were lower. In Table 3, it may be seen, for example, that of the 12 Administrative Secretaries I, MDA assigned 9 to their original class, 2 to lower classes (Clerk-Typist), and 1 to a higher class (Administrative Officer I). Referring to Table 3 again, it may be seen that of the six Administrative Officers II, MDA assigned 5 to their Original class and one to a lower class (Clerk-Typist I). In no case was an absurd assignment noted; e.g., an Administrative Secretary assigned to the class of Statistical Clerk. The distribution of discriminant function scores for a class can be used to estimate the probability that a specific position belongs to that class. The probability that each position was correctly assigned was ascertained. By and large, probabilities were high that positions were correctly assigned; e.g., for the 12 Administrative Secretaries I, the median probability that they belonged in that class was .72; for the six Administrative Officers II, the median probability was .84. 10 17 TABLE 3 Current Classification of Positions Compared to Classification of Positions According to Multiple Discriminant Analysis (MDA) Number of Positions Assigned to 12 Classes by MDA Total Current C D E F G H I K 4 N Current Class } Accountant I Acministrative Officer I Administrative Officer II Administrative Officer III Administrative Secretary I Administrative Secretary II Bookkeeper III Clerk Typist II Clerk Typist III Enforcement Officer I Junior Auditor Statistical Clerk II aed PAG ROM MOM > ooooonoococoov CooOoOrocoonroows rFnNnoroococoNod oooooocooowo°”e oooroonwro°9”e oooooomooors97 ooooonodcocoeoo°”oo9 OOoOonrorroroeo°o ooomrorro°orn9 oofrooooc*oec°c°coe oroooococoecococo mNnoooo0oo0o0corco°oeo ~ WAHEWUEFNNUAUWU Total Assigned N ~ ~ “© Ww ve Ww ~ to ve) ~ tS a > Ww @ Oo Note. Rows are the current classes. Columns are the classes to which positions are assigned based on the multiple discriminant analysis. The diagonal contains the number of current vositions assigned by MDA to their current classification. The hypothesis that the group means on the 20 factor scores differ was tested by the Mahalanobis (1936) D square. With 220 degrees of freedom the Generalized Mahalanobis D sguare was 817.43. Interpreted as a chi sguare, this D square value indicates a probability of less than .01 that group mean differences on the 20 factor scores of this magnitude could have yecurred if the null hypothesis were true. Part of the discriminant analysis is the identification of the activi- ity factors that most effectively discriminated among classes. Table 4 lists the univariate and multivariate F values for each of the 20 activity factors. The univariate F for a factor is the result of a simple one-way analysis of variance. A multivariete F is the "F to remove" in the step- wise discriminant program. It is :he result of a likelihood ratio test of the equality of the conditional distribution of a factor, given the other factors. The lower a multivariate F, the less the loss in discriminating power if that factor were dropped from the analysis. Univariate degrees of freedom were 1 and 68; multivariate degrees of freedom, 11 and 49. A closer look should be directed at those factors that have a multi- variate probability less than .01 (I, II, VI, and VII) and those that have a multivariate probability greater than .70 (IV, XI, XVI, and XVIII). The former are the most efficient discriminators: General Administration, General Clerical, Bookkeeping, and Inspection. The latter factors have the least discriminatory power: Inventory and Stockkeeping, Chart Making, Public Relations, and Steno. As expected, the more general factors were the best overall discriminators and those important for only one or two classes (such as Steno) least discriminating. 11 1§ TABLE 4 Discriminatory Indices of 20 Activity Factors Univariate Univariate Multivariate Multivariate Factor@ F Probability F Probability 4.13 0.0001 2.97 0.0044 5.66 0.0000 4.91 0.0000 2.38 0.0140 2.48 0.0148 0.78 0.6588 0.31 0.9795 1.24 0.2801 1.09 0.3924 9.99 0.0000 8.62 0.0000 4.38 0.0001 5.28 0.0000 0.60 0.8237 9.80 0.6439 1.41 0.1870 1.20 0.3096 2.50 0.0105 1.76 0.0872 0.72 0.7186 0.61 0.8085 3.07 0.0021 2.31 0.0223 0.94 0.5053 1.30 0.2511 1.49 0.1563 0.81 0.6346 1.19 0.3112 1.24 0.2844 0.57 0.8445 0.73 0.7037 0.81 0.6257 0.75 0.6879 0.72 0.7126 0.67 0.7636 1.60 0.1196 Lett 0.0995 0.99 0.4659 1.06 C.4116 4See Table 2 for labels of these factors. Job Evaluation Dimensions By means of factor analysis, an attempt was made to ceduce the 15 job evaluation scales to a few meaningful factors. Anderson & Corts (1973) had hypothesized five such factors, but provided no data to either confirm or deny. While this study does not support the hypothesis that five dimensions adequately explain the 15 job evaluation scales, it does sug- gest reasonable alternative hypotheses. From the intercorrelations of the scores on the 15 job evaluation scales, three principal component factors were extracted and rotated orthogonally. These three factors accounted for 55% of the common variance (see Appendix D for factor information). The first factor (accounting for 27% of the common variance) had nine scales that loaded .5 or better: Scope (2), Supervisory Controls (3), Guidelines (2), Purpose of Personal Contacts, and Knowledge Required by the Job. This factor was called Scope, because all the above-named scales, in one way or another, define the scope of a position. This is fairly obvious in the case of the seven scales intended to measure Scope, Guidelines, and Supervisory Controls. Purpose of Personal Contacts is logically related to Scope, because the greater the scope of one's position, the more diverse and the higher the level of one's contacts. Knowledge Required by the Job is also logically related to Scope, because the more knowledge required by the position, the greater tends to be the latitude given the incumbent. Thus, these nine scaies, representing four hypothetical factors (according to Anderson and Corts), collapsed on the first factor. 12 The second factor accounted for 16% of the common variance. Having only the Complexity scales loading .6 or higher, it was called Complexity. In the Anderson and Corts hypothetical framework, Complexity is only a sub- factor. The third factor accounted for 12% of the common variance. It had three scales loading .5 or higher: Physical Requirements, Work Environ- ment, and Skill Reguired by the Job (negative loading). These three scales were intended by Anderson and Corts to measure three separate subfactors, but in this study they have collapsed on a single factor named Unskilled Labor. Prediction of Grade Step-wise multiple regression analysis was used to determine the extent grade could be predicted from the data at hand. Three different types of predictors were used, the first type being the activity scales. The ratings on these scales were reduced, as described previously, to 20 factor scores. In the step-wise multiple regression analysis, the fac- tor score with the hignest correlation with grade is first identified. Then other factor scores are used in combination with the best predictor if they increase the precision with which grade is estimated. In all, 15 of the 20 activity factor scores were used in the prediction of grade. The multiple correlation was .74, which was statistically significant at the .001 level. The five best predictors of grade were General Adminis- tration (r = +.43), Mailing (r = -.23), Data Analysis (r = +.22), Auditing (r = +.21), and General Clerical (r = -.19), which in combination correlated .61 with grade. Next, the job evaluation factors were used to predict grade. Of these three factors only the first two were accepted by the step-wise multiple regression. The first job evaluation factor (Scope) correlated -55 with grade; the second (Complexity), .36. Together they correlated -65 with grade (significant at the .001 level). Thus, both the job evaluation factors (R = .65) and the activity fac- tors (R = .74) did a good job of predicting the grades of positions. While the activity factors provided a significantly better prediction of grade for this sample than did the job evaluation scales (.05 level), it took more of the former (15) than the latter (2). When the two best activity factors were combined to predict grade, the multiple correlation was only -49. One other piece of information was also correlated with grade: the incumbent's rating of the level of education necessary to perform the duties of the jot in a satisfactory fashion (r = .64). Thus, this easily available piece of information did just as well as the two job evaluation factors at predicting incumbents' grades. When a step-wise multiple regression was performed, using the two job evaluation factors and level of education needed, the resultant R with grade was .73. Selection Applications Validation of Ratings of Skills and Abilities The behavioral data used to develop selection tests were collected by having SME's rate statements describing skills and abilities for critical- ity/importance. These ratings were correlated with time spent ratings of 99 activities. Some skills and abilities were excluded from the analysis, because they did not represent promising item types!, SME's judged them unimportant, or they correlated highly with more important abilities. Sixteen percent of the correlations were significant at the .01 level of Statistical significance, far beyond the point to be expected on a purely chance basis. Important Job Behavior Dimensions The ratings of skili and ability statements according to their importance for distinguishing superior from satisfactory performance were intercorrelated; 17 factors were extracted and rotated orthogonally. These 17 factors accounted for 61% of the variance, with no single factor accounting for more than 14% or less than 1.2%. The author was able to name 13 of these factors. (See Appendix E for factor information.) The author named the first factor Problem Solving and Communication. Twenty-five of the 104 skills and abilities, including five representing promising item types, loaded at least .5 on this factor. Fourteen items had to do with reading, writing, or oral communication. Another nine items concerned problem solving. The second factor was named Secretarial-level Typing and had seven skills or abilities loading at least .5, all of which represent promising item types. The third factor, labelled Abstract Reasoning and Figure/Spatial Per- ception, had eight skills or abilities loading at least .5, three of which represent promising item types. The following factors had from one to six promising item types (num- ber in parentheses): VY. Arithmetic Computation (three) Proofreading and Editing (six) Name and Number Checking (four) Decision Making (one) Arithmetic Reasoning (two) Shorthand (two) XIII. Low-level Typing (two) Of the remaining factors that could be named, none had promising item types: IV. Psychomotor Ability (five item types represented, but none considered promising because of the expense of this type of test) lthe skills and abilities that were targeted for measurement by written or perform- ance tests will be referred to as “promising item types." Psychomotor tests were excluded because V.I. considered them too expensive. VIII. Leadership Rs Awareness Skills and Abilities for Specific Classes One of the main objectives of this study was to identify skills and abilities important for performance of clerical or administrative duties. Such identification, if it is to be most meaningful, should be on a class- by-class basis. In most cases the number of raters for individual classes did not reach our standard of six. It was therefore decided to create class families based upon the V.I. classification system. The first class family, called Clerk Typist, was comprised of Clerk Typist I, II, and III. The second class family, Administrative Secretary, was comprised of Admin- istrative Secretary I and II; the third family, Administrative Officer, of Administrative Officer I, II, and II¥. A position had to be assigned to its originial class by MDA in order to be included in the sample. The skills and abilities that loaded at least .5 on a job behavior dimension and are measureable by promising item types are listed in Table 5. Since the skills and abilities are listed according to the behavior factor(s) on which they loaded at least .5, there are several repeats. Interpretable factors having no promising item type are also listed to show where possible gaps in the testing program may exist. The order of the factors is according to their importance for the total sam- ple, aS measured by the mean importance of items loading at least .5 on a factor. Feasibility of Establishing Minimum Qualifications by Means of a Quantita- tive Procedure The following post hoc hypothesis was tested: It is feasible to use data like that generated by the Questionnaire to establish minimum qualifi- fications. The minimum qualification measure used was the incumbent's cating of the level of education necessary to perform the duties of the job in a satisfactory fashion. The predictors included the time-spent factor scores (described above) and the grade of the position. A step- wise multiple regression analysis resulted in grade and 11 factor scores Significantly predicting level of education (R = .77). RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE VIRGIN ISLANDS The results obtained in this study appear to make a great deal of sense on their own, as well as when they are compared with results of other studies. Unbridled optimism is not warranted, nowever, in view or the small sample and inability to cross validate. Class and Grade Determination The multiple discriminant functions generated in this study provide the best statistical approach presently available for determining a posi- tion's most appropriate class. Likewise, the multiple regression equation generated in this study provides the best statistical method for estimat- ing the most appropriate grade. However, due to the limitations mentioned above, statistical estimates should only be treated as hypotheses to be verified by interview, observation, or other empirical means. 15 0. 22 TABLE 5 Percent Incumbents Rating an Ability or Skill Impercant for Distinguishing Between Satisfactory and Superior F2rformance Clerk Administrative Administrative Typist Secretary Officer Factor Promising Item Type (N = 11-12) (N = 14-15) (N = 10-11) Proofreading and Ability to accurately spell 50 93 64 Editing (vI)@ difficult words without referring to a dictionary Ability to accurately spell words often found in office memos Ability to understand words commonly used in office memos Ability tc understand difficult words Ability to consistently use proper «~rammar 2nd punctuation Ability to understand difficult written paragraphs© Awareness (X) No promising item types represented Problem Solving Ability to understand difficult and Communication (1) written pa:agraphs© Ability .c determine a writer's purpose, intent, or point of view Ability to reason with words Ability to remember ideas (abstract ) Ability to derive general concepts or rules from specific cases (Cont incsd) TABLE 5 (Continued) Factor Clerk Administrative Typist Secretary Promising Item Type (N = 11-12) (N = 14-15) Administrative Officer (N = 10-11) Arithmetic Computation (V) Decision Making (IX) Name and Number Checking (VII) Arithmetic Reason- ing (XI) Leadership (VII1 Secretarial-level Typing (II) Ability to add or sv -_ract 42b 47 without the aid of a calculator b Ability to multiply or divide 33 47 without the aid of a calculator Ability to use fractions, decimals, 36 and percentages© Ability to derive general concepts 40 or rules from specific cases© Ability to quickly and accurately 40 compare numbers for exact likeness Ability to quickly and accurately 33 compare names for exact Likeness Ability to quickly and accurately 67> copy names or numbers Ability to quickly and accurately 36 code names or numbers Ability to analyze or interpret numerical data like that found in audit reports and financial state- ments Ability to use fractions, decimals, and percentages None Ability to type letters or documents 58> according to standard procedures Ability to type 50 net WPM 55° (Cont inued ) 45 45 64 70 30 30 40 20 36 TABLE 5 (Continued) Clerk Administrative Administrative Typist Secretary Officer Factor Promising Item Type (N = 11-12) (N = 14-15) (N = 10-11) Psychomotor Ability No promising written item types (Iv) Low-level Typing (XIII) Ability to type 20 net WPM Ability to type 35 net WPM Abstract Reasoning Ability to mentally manipulate and Figure/Spatial spatial figures in three Perception (III) dimensions Ability to reason abstractly using symbols Ability to determine inductively the logical relationship among the elements of a pattern Shorthand (XII) Ability to take shorthand at 80 WPM Ability to take shorthand at 100 WPM Note. The varying N's are due to incomplete data for some items. “The Roman numerals refer to the order achieved in factor analysis. bThis item type was selected for this class family. °This item type is also represented on another factor. Test Development The essential condition for the use of a particular subtest is that SME's judge the skill or ability measured by that subtest to be important for distinguishing between satisfactory and superior performance for a class of positions. Thus, the data from Table 5 were the basis for recom- mending particular subtests. For each of the class families for which recommendations are made there were at least 10 SME's, a number large enough to produce a fairly reliable mean rating. For Clerk Typists four subtests, representing five factors (Proofread- ing and Editing, Problem Solving and Communication, Name and Number Check- ing, Secretarial-level Typing, and Arithmetic Computation) were selected. One subtest, numerical computations, was selected for use as a selective placement factor, despite being rated important by less than a majority of SME's. Additional documentation on a case-by-case basis will have to be collected to show that this test is being used appropriately. For Administrative Secretaries four subtests representing five factors (Proofreading and Editing, Problem Solving and Communication, Name and Number Checking, Secretarial-level Typing, and Shorthand), were selected. One subtest, verbal reasoning, can be used -.o represent two factors (I and VI), inasmuch as such items also measure vocabulary. One subtest, short- hand, was selected as a selective placement factor, despite being rated important by only 27% of Administrative Secretaries. Shorthand should be used as a selective placement factor only for those positions for which it is important. For Administrative Officers three subtests, representing four factors (Proofreading and Editing, Problem Solving and Communication, Arithmetic Reasoning, and Arithmetic Computation), were selected. With two exceptions, for each of the three class families the recom- mended test represents every factor that has a promising item type and an important skill or ability. For each family class there were three factors that did not have promising item types: Awareness, Leadership, and Psychomotor Ability. These are the recommended subtests: Verbal reasoning (ability to reason with words commonly used in office memos) Grammar and punctuation (ability to consistently use proper grammar and punctuation) Reading comprehension (ability to understand difficult written paragraphs) Name & number checking (ability to quickly and accurately copy names and numbers) Numerical reasoning (fractions, decimals, percentages) Typing (reports at 50 WPM) Dictation (ability to take shorthand at 80 WPM) Numerical computations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) 29 These eight subtests would comprise three tests, one each for Clerk Typist (comprised of four subtests), Administrative Secretary (four subtests), and Administrative Officer (three subtests). The item types comprising the subtests and the classes for which they are recommended are listed in Table 6. The three subtests listed under "Rank" can be used to rank (but not screen) applicarts. A majority of SME's rated the corre- sponding skills and abilities important for distinguishing between satis- factory and superior performince, wut not necessary for barely adequate performance. The three subtests that can be used to both screen and rank were rated by a majority of the SME's necessary for adeauate performance and important for distinguishing between satisfactory and superior performance. The two subtests listed under "Selective Placement" were rated neces- sary for adequate performance by a significant number (but not a majority) of SME's. For those positions for which dictation or numerical computa- tions are necessary, the subtests can be used to screen out applicants with in~.fficient skill or ability. The basic principles used to develop these recommendations need explication: 1. The subtests for a family of classes should be identical. The job analysis data indicate small differences within class families, e.q., among Administrative Officers I, II, and III. In addition, it is anticipated that a test will be used to select an individual into a family of classes (e.g., into either an Administrative Secretary I or II position), but that movement within that family (i.e., from I to II) will be through reclassification based upon time in grade, recommendation by the supervisor, and final approval by the personnel office. TABLE 6 Recommended Subtests For Three Class Families Administrative Administrative Subtest Clerk Typist Secretary Officer Screen and Rank Verbal Reasoning Grammar and Punctuation Reading Comprehension Rank Only Name and Number Checking Numerical Reasoning Typing Selective Placement Dictation Numerical Computations The tests for different class families should be different. This approach obviates the undesirable situation where an employee must take a test for promotion that she/he took to be hired. The test battery for a specific class should be comprised of sub- tests that are relatively independent. For example, for Clerk Typist, although the job analysis data supported the use of a vocabulary subtest, it was not recommended. Since reading compre- hension, which was recommended, has been shown to correlate highly with vocabulary (Note 3), the use of both in a test battery is redundant. Additionally, the factor analysis of skills and abili- ties indicated that vocabulary, grammar and punctuation, and reading comprehension are all measuring the same basic ability: Reading and Writing Skills. Test content should have face validity, to facilitate applicant acceptance of the examining process. This is why typing and inductive reasoning (letter series) were not recommended for Administrative Officers, despite the SME's ratings indicating their importance. The performance tests in Table 6 are typing and shorthand. Because their administration and scoring is time-consuming, it is recommended that these *ests be administered only to those who pass the written tests. In addition, because of widely varying demands for typing and stenographic skills in individual positions, it is recommended that hiring authorities be able to specify a skill level for a specific vacancy. For example, an Administrative Secretary I vacancy with a heavy typing reguirement might be filled by an applicant who can type at least 50 WPM, while a vacancy with less typing might be filled by someone who can type at least 35 WPM. In like manner, a vacancy with a significant dictation component might call for someone who can take shorthand at 80 or 100 WPM, while a vacancy with little or no dictation might not reguire any stenographic skill. The scores of the subtests in any one column to be used for screening could be summed and an overall passing point assigned. As a first approximation, the passing points could be set at approximately one standard deviation below the applicant mean. This assumes an applicant group in which most can do the job satisfactorily. If evidence indicates this assumption is incorrect or if operational factors demand it, this passing point can be adjusted. An overall score for applicants could then be derived by summing the scores for all subtests for which ranking is appropriate. It is recommended that sufficient numbers of items, of the types enumerated in Table 6, be developed or selected. Sufficient items of most, if not all, types should be available in current V.I. tests. Dr. McAuley's detailed report (Note 4), Item Types in Current V.I. Written Tests, will facilitate the search for items of a particular type. The author's manual (Note 5) entitled Test Development should also prove useful. It is most important, however, to have the services of someone with the requisite knowledges and skills for test development. This individual is responsi- ble for (a) assuring that the tests are reliable and have appropriate cutting points and time limits and (b) setting up necessary security and administrative arrangements. The judged appropriateness of the various item types could be veri- fied, on a position-by-position basis, by requiring hiring agencies, at the time they request a certificate of qualified applicants, to provide information similar to the type collected in this study. This would allow the examiner to verify that the position belonged to the class claimed. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OTHER JURISDICTIONS A number of the products of this study should be helpful to other jurisdictions. The job evaluation scales require a psychometrician for appropriate application. Before a jurisdiction uses them, it would prob- ably perform the type of research described in this report, including administering the scales to a large number of incumbents, factoring the scales (optional), and correlating the results with grades of incumbents to determine the most valid predictors. The rest of the job analysis gquestionnaire--particularly the activity, skill, and ability portions--provides interested jurisdictions an advanced Starting point for the analysis of clerical and administrative positions. Such jurisdictions would want to adapt the questionnaire to their own Situations by editing, adding, or deleting items as appropriate. The basic data to support a claim of content validity is derived from the ratings of skill and ability statements. If written in behavioral terms, skill and ability statements describe key aspects of behaviors, e.g., “Ability to quickly and accurately proofread" describes a particular aspect of typing behavior. No attempt was made to identify the motiva- tional aspects of job behaviors, because the technology for measuring these aspects in the examining process is still in its infancy and not as well accepted as ability measurement.2 Behaviors selected for measurement should be critical or important. The approach taken here was to define critical work behaviors as those that are needed for barely acceptable performance. Hence, measures of these behaviors could appropriately be used to identify eligible appli- cants. Important work behaviors were defined as those that distinguish between satisfactory and superior performance; measures of these could appropriately be used to rank eligible applicants. A user may decide to collect additional job analysis information before developing a test, e.g., descriptions of work products, setting in which work behaviors are performed, the manner in which skills and abili- ties are used, the complexity and difficulty of the skills and abilities, and specific training requirements. In some cases, data for documenting the appropriateness of a test may be collected after it is developed. For example, each supervisor, in order to fill a vacancy or promote an employee, might have to describe the work products of the position and relate them to the work behaviors measured in the examination process. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION A job analysis undertaken for the Personnel Office of the U.S. Virgin Islands used questionnaire data provided by clerical and administrative personnel to accomplish several objectives. One objective was to develop a quantitative procedure for assigning positions to classes. Multiple discriminant analysis of ratings of time spent on work activities assigned 69% of the positions to their original classes. It was concluded that the current classifications of positions have validity. The preceding analysis was based on activity factor scores. Column 1 of Table 2 lists 17 interpretable factors derived from the V.I. activity “Users interested in studying the motivational aspects of behavior are encouraged to contact the author, as he shares their interest, ae data. The other columns of Table 2 list comparable factors from four studies of clerical personnel. Although most of the matching factors are clerical in nature (e.g., Mailing and Steno), some are not (e.g., Bookkeep- ing and Data Analysis). The non-clerical matches indicate the presence in the Page and Prien samples of personnel performing administrative activi- ties. All factors for which no match was found are administrative in nature, e.g., Auditing and Inspection. In general, both the matches and non-matches of activity factors support the present study and its results. Another objective was to develop a quantitative procedure for assign- ing grades to classes of positions. A factor analysis of the 15 job evalu- ation scales resulted in two interpretable factors, Scope and Complexity. Factor scores for Scope and Complexity were effective predictors of grade (R = .65). When ratings of level of education necessary to perform the duties of the job in a satisfactory manner were used in combination with Scope and Complexity to predict grade, the multiple correlation climbed to -73. This correlation is fairly high considering the likelihood of con- Siderable error variance in the grades of individual positions. The use of more reliable class data, as would be the case in practice, should produce a higher correlation. Thus, the feasibility of using a simple job evaluation questionnaire to assign grades to classes of V. I. clerical and administrative positions has been established. A third objective was to identify and define important skill or abil- ity domains that can be readily operationally defined. First, the validity of criticality/importance ratings of skills and abilities was demonstrated by the finding that 16% of the correlations of these ratings with time- spent ratings of work activities were significant at the .01 level. Post hoc, 16% was judged to be in the desirable range. A much higher figure would indicate the presence of one or more contaminating factors. Thirteen interpretable factors were extracted from the importance ratings of skill and ability statements. The skill and ability factors, although derived from SME ratings, are not unlike what one would expect from an analysis of test scores measuring the same content areas. The reasonableness of the factors lends some assurance that SME's can meaning- fully rate these types of skills and abilities for importance. It is frequently, but incorrectly, believed that the order in which factors are extracted from ratings parallels the rating scale used, e.g., in this study that the first factor extracted was the most important skill/ ability dimension; the second factor, the second most important, etc. The importance of factors was operationally defined as the mean rating of the specific skill or ability statements loading at least .5 on a factor, and correlated with the order in which factors were extracted. The resultant rho was small, .18, and not significant at the .05 level. The skill and ability statements in Table 5 were arranged in the order of the importance of their dimensions for the entire sample. The factor analysis of the skill and ability statements, and the fact that some of them were written to describe item types, made it a simple task to select a few item types to represent all the important measurable behavioral domains for Clerk Typists, Administrative Secretaries, and Administrative Officers. The general approach was made to represent each skill/ability factor in a test battery for a class, provided that the specific skill or ability chosen represented a promising item type and was important for that class. A post hoc hypothesis concerned the feasibility of establishing minimum gGualifications by means of a quantitative procedure. A step-wise multiple regression analysis was used to test this hypothesis. The grade of a position and 1l factor scores representing time spent ratings on work activities correlated significantly with the rated level of education necessary to perform the job in a satisfactory fashion (R = .77). It is reasonable to assume that the correlation would increase if class data, which would normally be used in an operating situation, were substituted for the single position data used in the present study. This report demonstrates how a large number of position classes can be included in a single study that has both classification and selection applications. The key features of the study are: the systematic collec- tion of information via a questionnaire administered to a large number of incumbents; appropriate classification of incumbents based on the amount of time spent on work activities; and the identification of skills and abilities, measures of which can legitimately be used to screen and rank applicants. Other features of the study include the validation of (a) job evaluation scales that can be used to assign a grade to a posi- tion or class of positions and (b) incumbents' ratings of skills and abilities. The approach described in this report differs significantly from con- ventional job analyses. The latter frequently (a) concern themselves with only one position class at a time, (b) cost much more per class, (c) fail to consider the possibility that the classification of a position may be in error, and (d) make inferences about skills and abilities with only limited justification. While giving lip service to an a priori definition of a population, many researchers either fail to define a population, or if they do, do not randomly sample from it; such an approach bases the process of filling vacancies on the inference that the vacancy is part of a class, because it has the same job title. In the present study the population was not defined a priori, except in a very broad and somewhat amorphous manner (i.e., V.I. clerical and administrative employees, GS-1 through 24). An attempt was made to include a:l those falling under this rubric, and it was the subgroups of this sample that defined post hoc the population for each class. Although some inappropriate positions were inadvertently included in the sample, this presented no problem inasmuch as they were readily identified by MDA. Conversely, failure to include every single position in the population was also not a problem, because MDA provides a statistical procedure for comparing vacancies to be filled with classes in the sample. In sum, instead of assuming that a position belongs to a class, because of its title, the present approach provides a statistical basis for comparing a position with a class. Finally one note deserves reemphasizing. When incumbent's grade and current classification were used as criteria (for the validation of the job evaluation scales and the multiple discriminant results, respectively), it was not assumed that these are perfect criteria. On the contrary, it is assumed here that these criteria have a certain amount of error variance and unreliability, and were determined by a process having a large subjec- tive component. Inasmuch as the predictors of these criteria were designed to be valid, reliable, and objective, it is possible that the validated predictors are actually better criteria than the criteria that were used to develop them. REFERENCE NOTES 1. McClelland, P.G. Clerical validation study job analysis questionnaire. Sacramento, Calif.: Selection Consulting Center, undated. 24 a4 Cristal, R.E. CODAP Workshop. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Civil Service Commission, 1974. Test Development Section. The interrelationships of several types of verbal tests. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Civil Service Commission, 1955. McAuley, P.A. Item types in current V.I. written tests. St. Thomas, Virgin Islands: USVI Office of Personnel, 19/77. Mann, W.G. Test development. St. Thomas, Virgin Islands: USVI Office of Personnel, 1977. REFERENCES Anderson, C.H., & Corts, D.B. Development of a framework for a factor- ranking benchmark system of job evaluation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Civil Service Commission, 1973. Chalupsky, A.P. Comparative factor analyses of clerical jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1962, 47, 62-66. Dailey, J.T., & Shaycoft, M.F. Types of tests in Project Talent. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1961. Fleishman, E.A. On the relationship between abilities, learning, and human performance. American Psychologist, 1972, 27, 1017-1031. Kane, J.S. A concurrent validity study of written examinations for clerical employment in Vermont State Government. Montpelier: State of Vermont, 1973. Kintop, C.L., & Mussio, S.J. A demonstration study in the use of synthetic validity and work sample tests. Minneapolis: City of Minneapolis Civil Service Commission, 1974. Mahalanobis, P.C. On the generalized distance in statistics. Proceedings of the National Institute for Science and Industry, 1936, 12, 49-55. Manpower Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. Task analysis inventories. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973. Page, R. An interjurisdictional validation of selection procedures for clerical and related classes in the State of Minnesota. St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Department of Personnel, 1975. Prien, E.P. Development of a clerical position description guestionnaire. Personnel Psychclogy, 1965, 18, 91-98. Psychological Corporation. General clerical test manual. New York: 1976. Rulon, P.J. Distinctions between discriminant analysis and regression analysis and a geometric interpretation of the discriminant function. Harvard Education Review, 1951, 21, 80-90. Thomas, L.L. A cluster analysis of office operations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1952, 36, 238-242. APPENDIX A Job Analysis Questionnaire and Instructions for Administering Questionnaire JOB ANALYSIS QUESTIONNAIRE MODERNIZATION PROJECT GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL OFFICE, U.S.V.1I. We in the Personnel Office are working to improve hiring and promotion practices in-Government. But it can't. be done without your help. If you will tell us about your job - through this questionnaire - we can make a test that is relevant to your job. You are the expert when it comes to your job. Please give us the advantage of your expert opinion. You have the approval of the head of your agency to fill out this questionnaire. Most people will finish it in a half hour; some more, some less. If you want to ask somebody for information, that's 0.K., - THIS IS NOT A TEST - but remember, in the end we want your opinion. All your answers will be kept confidential. Don't delay, fill out the questionnaire and enclose it in the attached envelope. Return it to your Personnel Officer or send it directly to the Government Personnel Office. Fill out this questionnaire only if: (1) You are a fulltime employee (2) You have been in your job more than three months. (3) Your position is in the General Schedule, grade 1 through 24. (5-6) Department or agency (7-9) Length of time worked for the V.I. Government (years) (10-11) Year of birth: 19 (12) Sex (Check one): 1. Male 2. Female (13-18) (19-48) Title of your class (49.51) Length of time you have been in this class (years) (months) (52-53) Your present grade: GS (54) Your present step (Check one): A i) Gy ter 6 US) tS) te (55-56) Your supervisor's grade: GS Questionnaire Contd. ahs What type of job do you have? (Check one answer) (1) Primarily clerical (2) Primarily administrative (3) None of the above g | I type of position do you have? (Check one answer) (1) Classified (2) Unclassified (3) Don't know zg III evel is your positiom? (Check as many as apply.) (1) Traine~ Journey man Master craftsman or troubleshooter Lead worker Supervisor of one or two employees Supervisor of three to six employees Supervisor of six or more employees Supervisor of employees who supervise others What level of education is necessary to perform the duties of your job in a satisfactory fashion? (Check one answer) (1) Less than high school (2) High school (3) One year of college, business school, or secretarial courses (job-related) (4) Two years of college, business school, or secretarial school courses (job-related) (5) Six to ten college courses (job-related) (6) Eleven or more college courses (job-related) The previous questions inquired about necess education for your pos- ition. Would additional education above that Teer usually make one more able to perform the job? Check the highest level of education that will lead to bettter performance. It will be helpful to think of superior employees in your class. What is their typical education level? (1) Less than high school (2) High school (3) One year of college, business school, or secretarial courses (job-related) (4) Two years of college business school,or secretarial school courses (job-related) (5) Six to ten college courses (job-related) (6) Eleven or more college courses (job-related) How many years of schooling have you completed? (ed 1) KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED BY THE JOB Almost every employee has to know certain things in order to satisfactorily perform the duties of the job. Below are listed a number of knowledges, e.g., Medical Science and Conservation. De- cide what level of knowledge you need to perform the duties of your position and check the appropriate place. In most cases you'Al check "No Knowledge Required." If you need to understand terms or words in that area, check "Conversant Knowledge of Terms." If you need to be skilled in that area, check "Journeyman Knowledge of Procedures." And if you need a very high level of knowledge, check "Mastery of Principles and Procedures." Level of Mastery Required Mastery of Journeyman Conversant Principles and Knowledge of Knowledge of Knowledge Area Procedures Procedures Terms Supervision Conservation Interviewing V.I. Law Psychology Public (Media) Relations Statistics Spelling Specialized vocab- ulary Language Usage (Grammer, Punctu- ation, Capitali- zation) Telephone Etiquette ‘Insurance or Real Estate (ed 2) Knowledge Required by the Job ie Level of Mastery Required | Mastery of Journeyman Conversant Principles and Knowledge of Knowledge of No Knowledge Knowledge Procedures Procedures Terms Required Arithmetic Economics Algebra Typing Steno or Speed- writing Keypunch ing Other Office Equip- ment or Machines Inventory Property 6& Procurement {General Accounting Bookkeeping | Auditing Filing Systems Financial Statements Office Administration Standard Clerical Formats Secretarial Adminis- tration Secretrial or Office Management Transportation (cd 2) ABILITIES Certain abilities are needed to perform the duties of your position. Unless someone has each one of these abilities they would be unable to perform your duties, even at a barely acceptable level of performance. The first ability listed below ("Ability to follow your supervisor's directions") is needed for your position. We have therefore put a checkmark in column one. Some abilities are important for distinguishing between satisfactory and superior workers. The first ability below is important for superior per- formance. We have therefore put a checkmark in column two. The second ability ("Ability to ride a horse") is not needed for barely acceptable performance of your position. Neither is it important for superior performance. Therefore, the space to the right of this ability should be left blank. To sum up, you may check one column - two columns - or no columns. This ability is needed; This ability is im- for barely acceptable | portant for superior ABILITY performance of your performance of your sition. position. Ability to follow your supervisor's Uv ad directions. | Ability to ride a horse. (leave blank) Ability to accurately spell difficult words without referring to a dictionary. Ability to quickly and accurately proof- read. Ability to accurately spell words often found in office memos. Ability to understand words commonly used in office memos. Ability to understand difficult words. Ability to consistently use proper grammar and punctuation. Ability to understand difficult writ- ten paragraphs. Ability to read technical manuals or legal documents. (ed 2) If the statement is NOT relevant to your position, leave it blank. If BOTH columns are relevant to your position, check both columns. This ability is needed | This ability is im- for barely acceptable portant for superior performance of your performance of your ABILITY position. position. pore to determine a writer's pur- se, intent, or point of view. Ability to grasp the meaning of poorly expressed writing. Ability to reason with words. Ability to pick the best words to convey a particular idea. Ability to think "on one's feet". Ability to adapt to the listener and the situation. | - Ability to orally impart complex, factual information. Ability to communicate moderately difficult ideas orally. Ability to follow moderately com- plex oral instructions. Ability to grasp the meaning of com- plex ideas expressed orally. Ability to write in a clear, well- organized, and complete style. Ability to impart in writing com- plex, factual information. Ability to communicate acderately difficult ideas in writing. Ability to learn by being told the answer. (ed 2) Abilities Contd. oie This ability is needed for barely acceptable performance of your position. This ability is im- portant for superior performance of your position. Ability to learn through discovery. Ability to memorize the meanings of new words. Ability to learn new systems, rules, or procedures that contradict material already learned. Ability to learn additional knowledge in one's specialized field. Ability to remember material that is not meaningful(e.g. a new language or a coding system) Ability to remember sentences for | short periods of time. | Ability to remember ideas (abstract). Ability to remember details (things). Ability to recognize the existence of problems and identify all the relevant | components. Ability to recognize need for new | approaches. Ability to evaluate the appropriate- ness or significance of an idea. Ability to organize work efficiently. Ability to foresee consequences of actions. Ability to make decisions when im- portant pieces of information are missing. (ed 2) Abilities Contd. -4- Ability Needed for barely ‘acceptable per- |formance. Important for Superior Performance Ability to select the best alternative course of action when complete information is avail- able. Ability to decide the need for revision of goals,policies, or procedures on the basis _of pertinent objectives and requirements. Ability to apply general concepts or rules to specific cases. Ability to derive general concepts or rules from specific cases. Ability to constructively critize others. Ability to gather sufficient facts be- _fore making a decision. Ability to make decisions on the basis of numerical data. Ability to quickly and accurate y compare numbers for exact likeness. Ability to quickly and accurately compare names for exact likeness. Ability to do detailed work very accurately for hours at a time. Ability to quickly and accurately copy names or numbers. Ability to quickly and accurately code names or numbers. Ability to alphabetize material. Ability to read diagrams or maps. Ability to read blueprints or schematics. Ability to accurately compare complex pictures for exact likeness. Ability to sort documents or other materials their shape and size. (ed 3) Abilities Contd. alte Ability Needed for barely acceptable per- formance. Important for su- Perior performance. Ability to mentally manipulate spatial _figures in three dimensions. Ability to reason abstractly using symbols. Ability to determine inductively the lo- gical relationships among the elements of a pattern. Ability to estimate size. Ability to see this size print at noraml reading distance. Ability to estimate quantity. Color vision. Depth perception. Ability to here a voice at a normal speaking lev2l of loudness. Ability to notice small differences in tones. Ability to localize sound in thrée dimensional _space. Ability to add or subtract without the aid of a calculator. Ability to multiply or divide without the aid of a calcuhator. Ability to count. Ability to analyze or interpret numerical data like that found in audit reports and financial statements. Ability to develop schedules or graphs having aber. Ability to use fractions, decimals, and per- centages. (cd 3) Abilities Contd. eh. Ability Needed for barely acceptable per- formance. Imvortant for Superior Performance Ability to do the kind of reasoning required to solve written arithmetic problems. Ability to apply statistical formulas. Ability to maintain physical activity over | prologned periods of time. Ability to lift articles weighing more than 40 lbs. Ability to make coordinated movements of | several fingers or two hands. Dexterity of hands and arms. Eye-har.d coordination. | Speed, succesive tasks. | Ability to neatly print (by hand)letters or numbers. | Ability to drive an automobile. Penmanship. Ability to type from dictaphone. Ability to type letters or documents ac- cording to standard procedures. Ability to type form letters. Ability to type statistical or financial re- ports which may include, tables, charts, or grapns. Ability to type drafts. Ability to take dictation and type from notes. Ability to type 20 net WPM. | Ability to type 35 net WPM. (ed 3) Ability Contd. ate Needed for barely Important for acceptable per- superior Ability formance. Performance = Ability to type 50 net WPM. Ability to take Shorthand at 60 WPM. Ability to take Shorthand at 80 WPM. Ability to take Shorthand at 100 WPM. Ability to concentrate admist distractions (such as phone calls, walk-ins, and questions). Ability to change one's set quickly from one task to another. : Ability to develop improved approaches to recurring problems. Ability to act in emergencies. Ability to act accurately under stress. Ability to come up with ingenuous solutions to novel problems. Ability to get along with others. Ability to control the behavior of a group that is seeking to achieve some goal. Ability to persuade orally. Ability to persuade by means of the writ- ten word. Ability to resolve problems by means of a bargaining process. (ed 3) JOB FACTORS Jobs differ on certain factors, such as "Scope and Effect." Read the first four statements below. Decide which one of the four statements best describes your position. Place a checkmark to the right of that statement. Now read the next four statements (at the bottom of this page). Decide which one best describes your present position. Place a checkmark to the right of that statement. SCOPE AAD EFFECT "Scope and Effect" covers the purpose of the assignment and the effect of work products both within and outside the organization. Best describes your present (5) Check only one of the following that best describes your present position. position. The purpose of your assignment is to perform specific routine operations that involve a few separate tasks or procedures. The purpose of the work you do is to carry out specific rules, regula- tions, or procedures. The purpose of your work assignments is to treat, analyze, or investi- gate a wariety of conditions, problems, or questions. The purpose of your work is to plan, develop, and carry out vital admin- istrative programs. Best describes your present (6) Check only one of the following that best describes your present position. position. 1. Your work products have little impact within or beyond your agency. 2. Your work products affect the accuracy, reliability or acceptability of further processes or services. Your work products affect the design or operation of systems, programs, or equipment. Your work products affect the development of major aspects of admin- istrative programs or substantia] numbers of people. (cd 4) COMPLEXITY "Complexity" has to do with the nature and variety of tasks, steps, proc-~ resses, methods, or activities in the work performed; and the degree tc which the employee must vary the work, discern interrelationships and deviations, or develop new techniques, criteria or information. Best describes your present (7)Check only one of the following that best describes your present position. position There is little variation in your work. Variations in your work stem from differences in the sources of infor- mation, in the kind of transactions or entries, or other factual situ- ations. Your work requires the interpretation of a variety of data and processes in a speciality field or discipline. Best describes (g) Check only one of the following that best describes your present position. your present position Actions for you to take are clear-cut. Your duties -equire consideration of factors and conditions. Factors to be considered involve the assessment of unusual circum- stance, variations in approath, incomplete or conflicting data, and incompatible results. Best describes (9) Check only one of the following that best describes your present position. your present position 1. Your work consists of a few tasks or functions that are clear-cut and directly related. Your work consists of several duties, involving several related steps, process, or methods. Your work consists of various duties involving processes and methods. Your work consists of a variety of duties involving a broad range of activities or depth of analysis for a highly specialized field of work. (ed 4) KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL REQUIRED BY THE JOB "Knowledge and Skill Required by the Job" measures the nature and extent of information or facts which the worker must understand to do accepta- ble work and the nature and extent of skills necessary to apply these knowledges. Best describes your present (10Xheck only one of the following that best describes your present position. position. Knowledge of simple or routine tasks or operations which typically include following step-by-step instructions. Knowledge of procedures that typically require some training or exper- ience. Knowledge of standard administrative processes. Knowledge of principles and practices needed to perform administrative assignments at the trainee level. Mastery of an administration field. (11) Check only one of the following that best describes your present position. Best describes (If clerical skills are not required, leave this item blank.) your present position. 1. Skill to operate simple equipment (e.g., date stampers, mailing machines, or reproduction machines). Skill to operate simple keyboard or switchboard equipment. Specialized office support skills, e.g., ability to type 50 words per minute. Highly specialize: office support skills, e.g., ability to take dictation at 110 words per minute or operate a keypunch machine. Highly developed secretarial skills, e.g., the ability to ac- curately take courtroom testimony with a steno machine. (cd 4) GUIDELINES "Guidelines" covers the nature of guidelines and the judgment needed to apply them. "Guidelines" should not be confused with "Knowledge and Skill required To Do the Work." Guidelines tell the employee how to use know- ledges and skills. (12)Check only one of the following that best describes your present position. Procedures for doing your work have been established and specific guidelines are available for reference purposes as needed. Guidelines are available, but are not completely applicable to your work or have gaps in specificity. General admitistrative policies and precedents exist, but are only limited guidelines for performing your work. Guidelines are broadly stated and nonspecific, e.g., broad and general policy statements. Best describes your present position. (13)Check only one of the following that best describes your present position. You work in strictly according to guidelines; deviations must be authorized by your supervisor. You use judgment in selecting the appropriate guidelines for ap- plication to specific cases; situations to which the existing guid- lines cannot be applied are referred to your. supervisor. You use judgment in interpreting and adapting guidelines for applica- tion to specific cases or problems. You analyze results or recommend changes. You are recognized as the authority in the development and inter- pretation of the guidelines. (ed 4) Best describes your present position. WORK ENVIRONMENT (14)The “Work Environment" may subject you to risks, discomforts or unpleasant- Best describes mess. Check only one of the following that best describes your present your present position. position 1. Your work environment involves normal, everyday risks or discom- - forts typical of such places as offices, meeting and training rooms, libraries, and residence or commercial vehicles such as airplanes, trains, or buses. The work area is adequately lighted, heated, and-ventilated. Your work involves moderate risks, discomforts, or unpleasantness such as a high level of noise and vibrations, dust and grease, con- tagious diseases or irritant chemicals. Special precautions are required, and you may use protective clothing or gear such as masks, gowns, coats, boots, goggles, gloves or shields. Your work environment involves high risks with exposure to poten- tially dangerous situations or unusual environmental stress, such as working with explosives, radioactive substances, noxious gases or fumes, at great heights, or subject to possible physical attack. You must apply a wide range of safety and other precautions. PHYSICAL REOUTRFMENTS ‘ The "Physical Requirements" placed on the employee by «he work assign- ment include physical characteristics and abilitie (‘+.¢., specific eye- sight and dexterity requirements) and the physical e»:ertion involved in the work (e.g., climbing, lifting, pushing, balancing, stooping, kneel- ing, crouching, crawling, or reaching). To some extent the frequency or intensity of physical exertion must also be considered, e.g., a job requiring prolonged standing involves more physical exertion than a job requiring intermittent standing. Best describes your grecent (15)Check only one of the following that best describes your present position. position. 1. Your work is sedentary. Typically, you sit comfortably to do your work. However, there may be some walking, standing, bending, ear- rying of light items such as papers or books, or driving an auto- mobile. No special physical requirements are required to perform the work. Your work requires some physical exertion, such as long periods of standing; walking over tough, uneven, or rocky surfaces; recurring bending, crouching, stooping, stretching, reaching, or similar ac- tivities; or recurring lifting of moderately heavy items such as typewriters and record boxes. Your work requires considerable and strenous physical exertion such as climbing of tall ladders, lifting objects over 50 pounds, frequent crouching or crawling in restricted aréas, or defending yourself or others against physical attack. (ed 4) SUPERVISORY CONTROLS "Supervisory Controls” covers the nature and extent of direct or indirect controls exercised by your supervisor, the nature of your responsibility, and the review of completed work. (16)Check only one of the following that best describes your present position. 1. Your supervisor maintains close controls and makes specific assign- ments with detailed instructions. Your supervisor provides detailed instructions for new, difficult, or unusual assignments and may suggest work methods or advice on source material evailable for routine assignments. Your supervisor provides assignments; deteruines the objectives, priorities, and deadlines; and assists you with unusual situations. Your supervisor determines the overall objectives and resources avail- able. You and your supervisor, in consultation, develop the dead- lines, projects, and work to be done. Your supervisor provides administrative direction with assignments in terms of broadly dined missions or functions. Best describes your present position. (17)Check only one of the following that best describes your present position. ; ee You work as instructed and consult with your supervisor on matters not specifically covered in original instructions or guidelines. You use initdative in carrying out routine assignments independently without specific instructions, bot refer deviations, problems, and situations not covered by instructions to your supervisor for decis- fon and action. You plan end carry out the successive steps and handle problems and deviations in the work assignment in accordance with instwuctions, policies, previous treining, or accepted practices in the occuptation. You, having developed expertise in the line of work, are responsible for planning and carrying out the assignment; resolving most of the conflicts which arise; coordinating the work with othere as necessary; and interpreting policy on own initiative in terms of established objectives. You keep your supervisor informed of progress, potentially controversial matters, or far-reaching implications. You have responsibility for planning, designing, and carrying out oo projects, studies, or other work independently. SUPERVISORY CONTROLS (Contd. ) Best describes your present (18) Check only one of the following that best describes your present position. position. 1. Your work is closely reviewed. This review may include checking progress as well as reviewing completed work. : The supervisor ensures that finished work is accurate and in compliance with instructions or established procedures. Completed work is usually evaluated for adequacy, appropriateness, sound- ness, and conformity to policy and requirements. Gompleted work is reviewed only from an overall standpoint in terms of compatibility with other work, or effectiveness in meeting requirements or expected results. Results of your work are considered as technically authoritative and are normally accepted without significant change. PURPOSE OF PERSONAL CONTACTS (19) "Personal contacts’ includes face-to-face contacts and telephone and radio dialogue with persons not in the supervisory chain. (NOTE: Personal con- tacts with your supervisor are covered under "Supervisory Controls.") Best describes your present Check only one of the following that best describes your present position. position. 1. The purpose of your personal contacts is to obtain, clarify, or give information directly related to the work. The nature of facts or in- formation ranges from that which is easily understood to highly tech- nical data. The purpose of your personal contacts is to plan, coordinate, or advise on work efforts; or to resolve operating problems. The persons con- tacted are usually working sowards mutual goals and generally have co- operative attitudes. The purpose is to justify, defend, negotiate, or settle matters in- volving controversial issues. The persons contacted may have dif- ferent viewpoints, goals, or objectives requiring convincing them, arriving at a compromise solution, or considering suitable alter- natives. (od 4) DUTIES _ You spend your work day doing various things. Please in- dicate below how much time you spend, in your present position, doing the various activities lisced. Estimate how much time you spend - on the average - dicing a sinsle cav. for example, if you co something once every five cays and if it takes 10 minutes to do, that would av- erage out to two minutes per day; you would place a checxmark in the category reading, "Less than five minutes per day”. TIME SPENT PER DAY Less than | 5 to 59/ 1 to 4 5 minutes | minutes; hours per day per day| per day ACTIVITY Folds paper or stuff envelopes by hand. Draws and letter charts, schedules, or graphs for illustrating data. Classifies, sorts, and files cor- respondence, records, or other data. Collate materials, including col- lecting pages, stapling assembled pages, and checking the number of copies. Receives and unpacks incoming shipments. Open or sort incoming mail. Distributes or delivers mail. Prepares outgoing mail for distri- bution. Takes the proceedings of hearings or weetings with a steno machine. Takes dictation from an individual ith or without machine, and transcribes notes. Types letters and reports according to standard procedures. Types tables and charts. Types inforratisn on ferns. ( ed 4) Duties Contd. es TIME SPENT PER DAY Less than 5 mins. 5 to 59 mins. 1 to 4 hours More than 4% hours Copies records and other documents using duplication machine. Records and encodes data, using a special purpose macnine. Weighs material or products. Operates machine to copy and post data, make computations, and compile records. Operates machines that record, store,process, and print data. Operates machines to proof tran- sactions and keeps qualitative records accounts. Computes arithmetical operations, using calculators or adding machines. Operates machines to address, stuff, fold, seal or stamp outgoing mail. Makes arrangemeats fof payments of money and keeps records of transac- Drives automobile (during working hours). Drews and letters charts, schedules, and graphs for illustrating data. Operates a cash register. Operates a bookkeeping machine. Uses card punch equipment. Uses other EDP equipment. Sarves as a. receptionist. (ed 4) Duties Contd. Se TIME SPENT PER DAY Less than| 5 to 59 1 to 4] More than 5 mins. mins. hours 4% hours Supervises* administrative personnel. Supervises* blue-collar personnel. Supervises* clerical personnel. Represents agency at official functions and meetings. Meets with supervisor. Meets with fellow government employees. Interviews the public. Meets with the press. Deals with public groups. Assists the public in preparing forms or applications. Takes messages. Serves as a telephone receptionist (places calls for others, operates a telephone console, makes telephone surveys, or answers telephone re- quests for routine information). Runs assigned errands. Arranges for appointments, events, meetings, or travel arrangements. te Designs and installs filing systems. Develops and establishes new file categories within a system. Investigates availability of equipment and approves cost estimates of equip- ment. | Analyzes and controls expenditures. : (3) (2) (3) (4) {5) * Activities of a supervisor or work-leader includes: Interviewing prospective employees; training subordinates: assigning and distributing work: etc. (ced 4) Duties Contd. aba ACTIVITIES TIME SPENT PER DAY Less than 5 mins. § to 59 nins. ito4% hours (5) Analyzes data and forecasts trends. (6) Contracts for sale, purchase, and delivery of goods or services. Coordinates maintenance and repair activities. Coordinates personnel programs. Interprets policy and regulations. Enforces administrative policies, operating procedures, or laws. Formulates, initiates, and executes policy or programs. Plans and organizes office practices and procedures. Plans and implements programs. Reviews budget allocations. Resolves complaints of the public. Recommends changes or procedures. Conducts investigations to determine compliance with laws or regulations. Checks that contracts and/or agree- ments are being fulfilled. Reviews product or service specifica- tions. Sets up controls against the loss of public property and/or monies. Interprets, summarizes, or analytes quantitative data. Examines, adjusts, adjudicates, or authorizes claims for benefits. (ed 5) Duties Contd. ee TIME SPENT PER DAY Less than | 5 to 59/1 to & 5 mins. mins. hours Conducts investigations pertaining to the suitability of persons for benefits or employment. Maintan bookkeeping records. Sakes budget estimates. Periodically reviews expenditures to help keep the organization within limitations. Compiles minutes of conferences and/ or meetings. Plans office layouts. Prepares contracts in whole or in part. Reads accounting books, audit reports, or financial statements. Reads legal documents. Reads blueprints or schematics. Reads maps or diagrams. Reads statistical data. Trains or orients personnel. Advises high-level decisionmakers. Applies complex guidelines and prec- edents to specific cases. Learns new skills and knowledges. Orally interpret and explain regule- | tions and policies, Inspects establishments with respect to the compliance with laws. - Analyzes current market and price —trends, ( ed 5) Duties Contd. lie TIME SPENT PER DAY Less than 5 mins. 5 to 59 mins. ito 4% hours Develops system of recording transac- tions into accounts or records. Keeps abreast of latest findings in area of specialization or in general field. Composes simple letters, announce- _ments, or reports. Drafts complex letters, memos, or reports. Gathers and coordinates background material, such as agenda items or drafts of annual reports. Designs new forms, form letters, or report formats. Corrects grammar ,punctustion,etc. of someone else's writing. Translates from English into a foreign language, or from a foreign language into English. Keeps records,such as personnel, at- tendance, or equipment. -Computes, classifies, and transcribes data for financial records. Prepares budget for agency. Analyzes and systemizes data relating to transactions and activities into accounts and records. Verifies and records orders of incca- ming shipments. Prepares invoices, inventories, cr Catalogs and prepares reference cards for books, manuals, or other public- ations. (ed 5) Orrice oF THE GOVERNOR GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF THE UNITED STATES PERSONNEL OFFICE P. O. Bex 2336 Charlotte Amalie, $. Themes, V.1. 00801 09774-5660 February 24, 1977 TO FROM: Walter Mann, Director Modernization Project RE: Administration of Job Analysis Questionnaire to Clerical and Administrative Employees As you no doubt know, you have been designated to coordi- nate the administration of a job analysis questionnaire in your agency. The head of your agency has been contacted and has approved the parti- cipation of your agency. To ensure prompt, complete cooperation of your agency personnel, it will be necessary to identify, by name, on a list, those who should take the questionnaire in groups of five, ten, or twenty. A conference room is a likely place for convening such a group; a supply of pencils is recommended; most people will finish in an hour. If group administration is impossible, employees should be given a copy of the questionnaire and provided a reasonable amount of work time to complete it. The names of those who have completed the questionnaire should be checked on the list. The remainder should be reminded after one week of the importance of the questionnaire. Participation is on a voluntary basis. Do not announce this fact, but if anyone refuses to take the questionnaire, just tell them, "No one is going to force you to fill out this form." Most people will fill out the form if you explain that it is not a test, the results will be confidential, and the head of your agency wants them to partici- pate. Completed questionnaires should be forwarded to the Personnel Office, to the attention of Dr. Walter Mann (St. Thomas) or Mrs. Norma Martin (St. Croix). Your support of this study is appreciated. I will brief Personnel Officers and interested agency representatives after the question- naires have been analyzed and plans for new tests have been prepared. Waltir 4 Maen Walter G. Mann 1046-1847 PERGONNEL MERIT GYETERM OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLAND SAN INVESTMENT IN GOOD GOVERNMENT APPENDIX B ovrics oF Memorandum to Department and Agency Heads TWE GOVERNOR Requesting Participation in the Study GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF THE UNITED STATES PERSONNEL OFFICE P. OC. Bex 2336 memser Chariette Amalie, $. Themes, V.l. 6080! HOR TTA Spb January 24, 1977 Department and Agency Heads TO FROM: Walter G. Mann, Director Modernization Project SUBJECT: Job Analysis of Clerical and Administrative Classes As you may know, grants to the Virgin Islands in excess of $25 million yearly are dependent upon meeting various personnel requirements prescribed by Federal statute and regulation. In addition, state and local agencies all over the comtry are being sued over alleged discriminatory hiring practices. The situation has become so critical that the U.S. Civil Service Commission has approved the project; and the official announcement of the project by Government House was made several months ago. The purpose of this memorandum is to call to your attention an upcoming activity of the Modernization Project: a job analysis of all clerical and administrative classes in the classified service. The job analysis will be accomplished by the administration of questionnaires to all incumbents of these classes; the will be distributed and collected by personnel you designate. Your personnel officer, or whomever else you may want to make responsible will coordinate the activity in your agency. Analysis of the results of the questionnaire will allow us to scientifically develop job-related tests for clerical and adminis- trative classes. These new tests will not only fulfill federal require- ments, but will provide better ways to measure the ability of applicants for hiring and promotion. Once the new tests are operational, agencies will not be allowed to hire or promte in these classes wntil appropriate job analysis information is on file in the Personnel Office. > The results of this study - including a documentation of participating agenciés - will be made available to the U.S. Civil Service Commission. nes As soon as someone has been designated to coordinate this activity, I would like to be informed (774-7175). Waltir # Mane Walter G. Mann APPENDIX C Computer Print-Outs of Factor Analysis Data for 99 Activities NOTE = PERCENT CF VaAFIANCE FO! f&_ ROTATED FACTOR IS TRE SUM OF SCUARiS OF THE LOTATED FACTOR DIVICED bY THE T.UNPER GF VARIABLES» TIMES 100. FACTOR Sum PERCENT OF CUMULATIVE OF SGUARES VARIANCE PERCENT ~ ROMO je @ tt oe jor ©; € as tiene & ee Pod 7 l _ _. 406604 _ 4e4C00 (wy Wins Po oro ie 8s @ je @ $e ff = PMO iy Ola S } | ’ { Ow AO WIP Wit e NNN Wiw + e ele ele e@ | OO OFN MW UTS BO WO F 2 2 2 2 2 2 l 1 l l | | | | je @ NOOO wo, SCANs _ aa IN=DATAs ____ SDATASD> _ STAYMISSS FeCOEF s eo eee FACTUK=\FACe Be PEO OOUT ICS: - BADINPUTSUSEGOODS PRINTS3/X/VFACS ee VEKIMAX FACTORS OF C POSITION Cawovrene ~ 0UTY421 | | | LABEL * DUTY4z0 FILE VFAC =0,096 ‘A... =-02069 L5 0,733 DUTY422 DUTY423 DUTY424 DUTY425 DUTY426 “BUT Y427 DUTY428 DUTY429 DUTY430 ODUTY431 DUTY432 “Stas, ——COt—C“‘(<(‘( DUTY434 DUTY435 DUTY436 ODUTY437 DUTY438 “DUTY439 DUTY 440 OUTY441 DUTY442 DUTY443 DUTY444 ~ DUTY445 DUTY 446 DUTY447 DUTY448 DUTY449 DUTY450 DUTY451 . DUTY452 DUTY4S53 DUTY454 DUTY455 DUTY456 “‘DUTY457 DUTY458 DUTY459 DUTY460 DUTY461 DUTY462 “DUTY463— DUTY464 DUTY 465 DUTY466 OUTY5U5 DUTY506 DUTYSOT ~ *Note: number at the bottom of a page. 0.192 -0,061 ~ #0,109 0,120 0,054 -0,057 0,032 0.045 -0,035 -0,025 -0.,105 0,021 -0,030 6.007 0.108 202090 0.1861 0,014 0.131 0,323 “2 eee 0,573 0,591 0,643 i, Aeros "sa -0,042 ~0,024 0,107 0,063 0,030 -0,029 -0,023 0,035 -0,004 “20.096 ~—— 0 049 0,008 ~ oO, 071 0,100 -02002 0.022 -0e076 #02029 0.068 0.678 -0,000 0.082 0.144 0.123 0.015 0,026 -0,026 -0,060 0.101 0,079 0.034 eUeltif 0,072 0,105 -0,105 =0,075 #0,086 -0,054 -0,108 -0,172 -0.119 0.064 -02086 0,054 0,030 0,006 0,038 0,234 0,039 0,278 -0,137 0,028 202904 =02006 0.041 0.132 0.365 0.145 -02005 ~~ #02081 0.011 0.047 #02019 02025 0-180 er 0,188 -0,190 0,161 0.076 0,095 0,190 0,042 0,490 0,035 0,209 -0,018 -0,030 0,065 0.017 0,031 0.763 0,106 0.791 0.438 0.114 0,135 -0.123 0,029 0.082 0,951 -0,002 0,080 -0,082 0,057 -0,073 —~s0, 056 -0,022 0,011 0,364 0,064 ~ 0,067 0.182 0.354 -0,099 0,045 0.020 =-0.025 0.107 -0.028 -0,083 0.059 =0,105 -0,085 0,064 ~ -0.074 0,109 -0.064% ~ #00086 0,093 0.023 0.258 00119 02087 =0.012 0.186 0.190 0,044 0,069 -0,029 =0.014 0.093 20,059 0,005 -0,081 -0.006 -0,007 0,294 0.126 0,148 0,130 0.028 ~ 0,050 -02089 0.136 =02074% .0.090 0.037 -0,003 0,054 0,383 0,321 0.627 0.151 =0,060 0.029 -0,.032 0.041 =0.904 -0,020 0.264 0.085 -0,015 -0,009 0,109 0,093 0.075 0.169 0,730 0.527 0.278 0.764 Vane, ESTE ~ Oe296 0.227 0,041 -0,092 -0,146 0,010 D.05T 0,071 0,090 0.134 0,077 0,143 U,1U3 0,083 0.151 -0,007 -0,016 0,079 “0,025 Questionnaire items are represented by three-digit numbers. The last two digits are next to the item. 0.085 =0,056 The first digit is the "cd" b+ ~ WERIMAX FACTORS FILE VFAC POSITION LABEL 4 ; L6 _DUTYsog = G18 0,173 -0,018 DUTY509 Y ae ) agen aay mare 3 70.036 DpUTY510 ¢ =0,070 — #0,032 DUTY51i -0,082 #0,015 DUTY512 0,265 0,003 DUTY513 =0,060 ~~ 00,065 DUTY514 #0,005 0.137 DUTY515 oe’ 0.513 . oA ~~B, 09% 09 -0,033 DUTY516 0.048 #0.061 OUTY517 #0.114 " =0,054 DUTY514 0,148 0,050 DUTY519 -0,039 0,065 DuTY520 -0.157 0.077 DUTY521 a | =0.066 : ° 0.062 DUTY522 0-042 #0.013 OuTY523 0,049 DUTY524 0.728 DUTYS25 0,063 DUTY526 0.120 MT TSeT oo w ome. sp we > —0,032— DUTY528 0,046 DUTY529 #0,912 OUTY530 0,508 puTY531 0,007 DUTY532 0.031 ~ DuTY533 Mee a otepeseesumar wa i teams Me ee ee a 20,080 DUTY534 0,054 OuUTYS35 0.016 DUTY536 0,033 OuTY537 0,055 DUTY538 0.174 DUTY539 — ser re eae are aria : DUTY540 DUTY541 DUTY542 OUTY543 DUTY544 OUTYSSS =. Ba SUZ DUTY546 19443 DUTY547 0.484 DUTY546 0.332 DUTY549 9.134 DUTY550 0,234 ~DPUTY551° ea a DUTY552 OUTY553 0,995 DUTY554 t 0.2086 DUTY5S55 #02040 DUTY556 -0.070 VWERIMAX FACTORS OF C Sah eas i : : FILE VFAC POSITION sal pagengie ees oa 12 14 15 Te Li2_ sca aa OSE Sao I OS, L16 LABEL DUTY420 -0,096 -0.070 =0,092 0,019 0.028 puTY421 0.167 0.054 6,045 0,028 6.051 DUTY422 -0,099 eae Mites ST ak z 0.014 0,057 0.031 DUTY423 0.022 -02059 z 09 044 ae BRR DUTY424 _—=—s 5230 ae - 0.014 0.033 #0152 00198 DUTY425 -0.160 ate08d 5 i weet " “eleOet = Baten ____DUTY426 -0.036 0.109 0.009 204047 00108 ~"puty427 0,039 - : 6,076 ma -0,042 0,037 0,068 DUTY428 -0.035 ~ 02060 0.035 -0,038 02022 DUTY429 0,082 0.062 ~ #09101 ~ OgOs2 =02044 OUTY430 =0.043 #02022 -0.076 -0,045 #02016 DUTY431 -0,067 0,022 c =0,004 ts -0,095 0.037 OUTY432 0,060 0.016 0.143 0,088 -02e137 DUTY433 0,247 a « wOsats -0.04T ~~ — 0,073 ~0,037° DUTY434 -0.,169 0.619 0,088 0,021 02046 DUTY435 0.236 0.753 : 0.014 ok 0,041 ~ 002077 DUTY436 0,068 02024 0,163 0,052 0,034 DUTY437 -0,039 0,039 ~ 0,119 oe Fy: ae OUTY436 -0.023 0,048 02245 -0,066 0-040 —s..CUC COU Tapani’. wean AS yey omectaee er eee 0,151 -0,098 DUTY 440 0,008 0.038 0.117 0.101 #02002 DUTY44]1 -0.019 #02012 0,078 0.125 #~02951 DUTY442 -0.065 0.343 -0,040 ~0,.131 0.029 DUTY 443 0,047 0,063 -0,003 0,167 ° DUTY4446 U,048 0.741 -0,048 0.019 DUTY445 — = 0,048 0. - capa EL ante, son em cree eee toe: ° & «&4xa@etsee” DUTY446 =-02139 i -0,088 0,030 202039 DUTY44? 0.271 0.053 "? get Z2 ~~" #02004 DUTY448 -9,138 -0.115 0.249 ~0,.080 DUTY449 02063 02054 O17 =02032 DUTY45¢ 0.280 0,089 0,094 0,007 DUTY451 ~ ie eg sense G5 a Ea an Sa fe yatce =0,064 0,009 =02104~ DUTY452 0.215 0.017 -0,019 0.035 OUTY453 0,045 -0.141 0,044, 02052 DUTY454 0.030 02104 -0,088 ~0 2049 DUTY455 “#0167 -0,010 0.371 0.099 DUTY456 0.059 -0.067 0,024 02754 DUTY457 ~~" 20.086 gents aarti tease ee a se 2 ib.) mmaummatisaiae. 2 i ex anomeas, oF DUTY45& -0.180 0.528 0,508 0.087 DUTY459 -0.147 s -0,005 0.299 @0 2044 DUTY460 ~-Je1l68 0.041 0.225 #02026 DUTY461 0.052 -0.015 ~ 0,024 0.224 02023 DUTY462 -0,.07)} 0.107 d 0.016 -0,.020 02170 "SUTtG OO" ee” eee 086 #02012 06428 =0,04T 0.054— DUTY464 -0.053 -0.990 02028 ' 0,399 -0,091 0.065 DUTY465 =Oells -0.005 -02919 0,045 0,048 -0.008 DUTY4646 e126 9.940 -0-001 -0,0931 0,026 =02019 DUTY505 Veo? -0,037 { 0.062 ~~ #0053 -0,074 0.2126 DUTY506 0.075 -0.050 0.028 -0.051 0.144% -02028 puTY507 ~~ cou. 0: lee. eee a:646° °° ‘Gelert, oo ween... U,0I% =02044- ODN Ow Fw KR ~ VERIMAX FACTORS OF FILE VFAC “pOSITICN——™ ; eae, 11 > = T3 14 15 mT) Lill L1l2 Re eee ce ee _ DuTY508_ 8 0,940 0.074 0,075 0,090 0,162 0,084 DuTY509 -0,004 =02005 -0,092 20,017 0,007 20.012 DUTY510 dic? eae a. ee 0.101 -0,070 0,007 0.080 200121 DUTY511 0,003 0,041 "09044 Sh ee vo, ore puTY5i2 : 0.159 0.019 0,016 0.061 -0,102 20037 DUTY513 = _O30 ~~ #02001 @0,007 — cif eee 0,305 bUTY514 0,082 0,008 0,014 -0,071 0,118 0,223 OUTY515 ; 0,035 0.063 0,071 0,021 0,240 -0,001- DUTY516 ie ie =0.042 0,006 -0,030 =0,132 O.l18 DuTY517 0,051 20-001 ~~ 0,048 -0,013 0.125 ‘ #0015 DUTY518 + 0,063 02132 0,002 -0,966 0,094 0.229 DUTY519 #0,021 0.135 555 # £4zx4G002 . 0.105 ~——«*/- O96 DUTY520 0,102 0.187 0,038 0,023 0,147 @0.018 buTys21 0.640 0.185 0.029 =0,005 =0,012 a+. = —(‘(C aa DUTYS22 0.145 0,023 0.051 @-0,035 -0,028 0,710 0.028 OUTY523 0,038 0.097 =02095 -0,083 'o,675 —" - Qn °° afete DUTY524 -0.159 -0,006 0.049 -0,095 -0.194 0.018 02049 DUTY525 0.022 0,060 0.041 a 35 0,003 -0,045 co” ae DUTY526 0,099 0.071 -02024 =6.044 -0,017 0,057 0,032 ee eee 0.112 = -0,053 ~~ Ge 104" v,cic =0,063 =0,004 0,038 DUTY528 “0,098 02128 0.341 0.985 =0,045 0,001 DUTY529 0,101 0.093 -0,024 0.123 0,109 0.128 DuTY530 #0,011 02102 0,158 0.923 0,032 #02107 DUTY531 0,014 0.041 0,027 #0,031 0,109 ~ Qe251 0.146 0.071 -0,007 0,001 -0,146 02256 a ae 0,003 =0,022 0,070 0.274 ~~ DUTY5S3¢6 0,292 -0,064 0,0U8 20.084 -0.,110 Oe2ll DUTY535 -0.189 -0,008 #02066 ~ 0,113 0,037 i 0,019 : 0.056 DUTY536 0.123 0,039 0,067 0.151 0,020 0,075 0.091 DUTY537 0.572 -0,001 02016 0,088 -0,015 0,236 0.002 DUTY538 0.118 -0,010 0-064 -0,051 #0,053 0,180 0,024 DUTYS39°* ~~ +#O,017 —~0,092 —_—— $0.-03L- ~~ —— =n -0O.11IF U,06T -0.050 — DUTY540 -0,027 0,037 0,340 20,003 -0,063 0,049 0,038 DUTY541 -0.121 0,070 0,633 =0,084 -0,023 0,024 02143 DUTY542 0.071 0,362 02014 =0,142 0.113 0,062 #02169 DUTY543 0,127 0.167 0,303 0,155 0,092 -0,041 0.238 ° DUTY544 0,033 0.120 -00147 -0,163 -0.107 -0,160 02113 ya | Saeed 0% |; SE | = 0,178 =-0.107 Le ee”: C ”C”:tCt DUTY546 -0.018 0,209 #02048 -0,077 -0.101 -0,.005 0,068 DUTY547 -0,040 0,273 -0,041 0,017 0,018 0,047 ~ @0.036 DUTY548 VeO17 0,055 =0-019 -0,065 -0.017 0,081 #02037 DUTY549 -0,032 -0,072 -0.071 -0,054 0,977 -0,053 0.091 buTY550 0.154 0,164 #02102 -0,062 -0,096 -0,134 200247 a a ll lhe ;-—“‘ st ee!!!” Clee 0.a7Z S0.07TF =0,052 «0,033 OUTY552 -0,03% ) =0,044 0.107 -0,029 0.931 -0,100 -0.052 DUTY553 0.134 { -0,061 -0.050 0,110 0,008 -0,084 ~~ @eS43 DUTY554 0.274 0.217 0.082 0,008 0,080 0,004 o0.155 DUTY555 0.291 =0,003 0.076 -0,053 ~ ~“#0,084 =-0,003 : ~02255 DUTY556 0.163 0.107 0,067 -0,039 0.121 -0,129 02013 ~VWERIMAX FACTORS OF C Pini ibis Ss LW zs ; FILE VFAC ~ POSITION LABEL DUTY420 CUTYs21 DUTY422 DuTYs23 _ DUT Y4246 OuTY425 _— = DUTY426 DUTY427 ___ DUuTY428 DUTY429 OUTY430 — eT DUTY432 BUTYs33 DUTY43«6 DUTY435 DUTY436 DUTY437 DUTY438 DUTYS39 DUTY440 puTY44l DUTY442 DUTY443 DUTY444 DUTY445 DUTY446 DUTY447? __OUTYS4B DUTY449 | DUTY450 “pUuTYssT DUTY452 puTY«53 __DUTY454 DuTY455 ae DUTY456 BUTYs57 DUTY458 DUTY459 DUTY460 OuTY461 DUTY462 DOTY46é3 DUT Y464 DUTY465 }°+#&«3»g#F DUTY466 ouTY505 res” NuTY5U6 DUTYSO7T VERIMAX EACTORS OF C POSITION FILE VFAC LABEL ‘ ey DuTYS508 DUT YS509 DUTYS1LO ~~ OUTYs?1 DuTysi2 puTy$13 DUTY5S1«6 puTyYs15 DUTY516 “puTYsi? DuTY518 DUTY519 puTYS20 puTys2i vuTY*%22 puTYs23 DUTYS2¢6 ——~ putys25— ouTys26 ~DUTY527 =0,027 _DuTyY528 20,096 puTY529 0.525 pUTY530 0,003 ae ee puTYS32 ~0,095 DUTY533 -0,039 202070 DUTY53«4 0,039 1B 0.072 "ives «=. aes DUTY536 0,052 Tees ae DUTY538 -0.00} DUTY539 20,045 DUTY540 ©0135 et DUTY541 eta sealg Es ce DUTY542 0.218 ~ puTy543 0,107. DUTY544 0.276 en = DUTY 545 O,277 0.07) oot 0,400 ee \ 05010 0.235 0,064 DUTY552 ~0.022 DUTY553 et eee bUTYS5S« DUTY555 — DUTY556 _ SAVE SF SOUT JESS ihiesa:.-- swenliiilensas a Meines come g | * as FSDUTItSs §#| 160 KOWS UY\ 20 COLUMNS» HAS WEEN SAVED Un POT 29 AS FILE i2) FIRST BLOCK [S$ S| or APPENDIX D —__________ Computer Print-Out of Factor Analysis Data for 15 Job Evaluation Scales NOTE = PERCENT OF VARIANCE FOR A ROTAT=D FACTOR IS THE SUM OF SQUARES OF THE ROTATED FACTOR DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF VARIABLES» TIMES 100. FACTOR SUM __ PERCENT OF _ CUMULATIVE OF SQUARES VARIANCE —__ PERCENT Ll 4.0161 | aes L2 204794 L3 1.7379 ~ WERIMAX FACTORS OF C © ~ POSITION ~ LABEL _SCOPE1 “SCOPE2 ok ees COMPLEXITY2 COMPLEXiTYS KNOWLEDGEe1 SKILLel ~ GUIDELINESI GUIDELINES2 _ ENVIRONMENT PHYSICAL.REQ SUP.CONTROLI SUP, CONTROL2 SUP. CONTROLS CONTACTS | 0 DN Ou fiw Ae APPENDIX E Computer Print-Outs of Factor Analysis Data for 104 Skills and Abilitfes ~~ NOTE = PERCENT OF VARIANCE FOR A ROTATED FACTOR IS THE SUM_OF SQUARES OF THE ROTATED FACTOR DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF VARIABLES, TIMES 100. “FACTOR SUM ~~ PERCENT OF CUMULATIVE See > VIR. eee moos © Seeteacae oO —~1403 L2 5.8741 506 act Neeaenmmemes Mf a L4 5.1756 5.0 Pee” OR, © | cee L6é 4.1527 4,0 : §; Serene 3249653 ia 328 Dae | MN WM ear 8 L8 363665 302 45.7 RS) ee eae Ee ee Re L10 2.3871 2.3 50.4 SS) eee oe | Se emeee Fen a Ok Se L12 1.8357 1.8 54,0 seus SS ene a eel L14 57.1 pan 8. Aes aD 58.6 L16 60,0 ers: SS et ee ——_PRINTs3/VFSUPSs ODOM Ain & lw tye _ITERATIVE FA OF SUPERIOR ABILITIES _ __VERIMAX FACTORS OF FSUP _ POSITION LABEL ABILITY236 ABILITY237 ABILITY238 ABILITY239 ABILITY240 ABILITY241 ABILITY242 ABILITY243 ABILITY2446 ABILITY2465 ABILITY246 _ABILITY2467 ABILITY248 _ABILITY249 ABILITY250 ABILITY251 ABILITY252 _ ABILITY253 ABILITY254 ABILITY255 ABILITY256 ABILITY257 ABILITY258 ABILITY259 ABILITY260 ABILITY261 ABILITY262 ABILITY263 ABILITY264 ABILITY265 ABILITY266 ABILITY267 ABILITY268 ABILITY269 ABILITY270 ABILITY271 ABILITY305 ABILITY306 ABILITY307 ABILITY308 ABILITY309 ABILITY310 ABILITY311 ABILITY312 ABILITY313 ABILITY314 ABILITY315 ABILITY316 ABILITY317 ABILITY318 Oo@ewowrune ITERATIVE FA OF SUPERIOR ABILITIES PAGE _. VERIMAX FACTORS QF FSP ea SST ES 7 Simei anne Sie ae TEN . EE POSITION LABEL ABILITY319 ABILITY320 ABILITY321 ABILITY322 ABILITY323 ABILITY324 ABILITY325 ABILITY326 ABILITY327 ABILITY328 ABILITY329 ABILITY339 ABILITY331 ABILITY332 ABILITY333 ABILITY334 ABILITY335 ABILITY336 ABILITY337 ABILITY338 AUILITY339 ABILITY340 ABILITY341 ABILITY342 ABILITY343 ABILITY344 ABILITY345 ABILITY346 ABILITY347 ABILITY348 : p : * Shae: ee ea se ee see ee poset 292062. ABILITY349 3 0.108 ABILITY350 p BOP epee BRC ABILITY351 0,031 ABILITY352 a ees i a ABILITY353 0.182 ABILITY354 i S neers SON MEST mommy “ ) Begunaieheoar ABILITY355 0.007 ABILITY356 z : i 2 Se ee ABILITY357 0.097 ABILITY3586 : Ss een ABILITY359 0.044 ABILITY3690 : toes nee is a as A Re OAs a sia dass AIC scidascalacse ABILITY361 #02023 ABILITY362 ‘ Ses sian ; Se, Maem tnies ABILITY363 02288 ABILITY364 Oel2l ABILITY365 0.200 ABILITY366 Se Ps AEN Ae So a j ea oa : 06223 __ ABILITY367 02056 ABILITY368 -020153- —__.-02008¢@ . ITERATIVE FA OF SUPERIOR ABILITIES ___VERIMAX FACTOMS OF FSUP ais Se ae STRSTR RLS Lips tiae _ __VESUP POSITION LABEL Lis Lie ABILITY236 ea Chia ane 700152 0,098 ABILITY237 Cite... Bele? ABILITY238 0.103 70,018 ABILITY239 00115 0.000 ABILITY240 #02059 70.085 ABILITY241 Bac i oe ae ot ek aes eee 9 002 | 00-219 ABILITY242 #02012 #0,078 ABILITY243 me me 00099 #04053 ABILITY244 00137 #0ellé ABILITY245 ss . @088_ -0,068 — ABILITY246 0,022 “0,117 — ABILITY267 _ ke cee ee, i see #02022 __ 09146 _ ABILITY248 0,002 0.018 ABILITY249 Roars peo” ee ABILITY250 20.082 0,033 ABILITY251 sone ___ 002018 _ . 0,10$ ABILITY252 #00184 0,057 ABILITY253 LEE all : ‘ mae, 209292 __ 20,015 _ ABILITY254 0.100 #0,071 ABILITY255 ics ‘ si : } ru oa ______ 00,063 | ABILITY256 0.134 ABILITY257 ABILITY258 ABILITY259 " ABILITY260 ABILITY261 ABILITY262 ABILITY263 ABILITY264 ABILITY265 ABILITY266 ABILITY267? ABILITY268 ABILITY269 ABILITY270 ABILITY271 ABILITY305 ABILITY306 ABILITY307 ABILITY308 : ; iP ABILITY309 #02000 ABILITY310 peas see os mn q & : _ 0,066 | ABILITY311 #02060 ABILITY312 t 0,037 ABILITY313 ABILITY314 ABILITY315 ABILITY316 ABILITY317 ABILITY318 | | Ooenwowruwne 7J ITERATIVE FA OF SUPERIOR ABILITIES 4 .WERIMAK FACTORS OF FSUP e sien Bi iectnapchaaebaisies aioe on is ies PQSITION LABEL ABILITY319 ABILITY320 ABILITY321 ABILITY322 ABILITY323 ABILITY324 oe ; : i ee SEE ee PRM EN A ABILITY325 0,251 0,0%4 ABILITY326 aH 7 ae, © pees ER ABILITY327 0.270 00225 0.132 ABILITY328 satan : te 0.206 oe Oe Pe ic ROO a ABILITY329 0.143 02070 0.103 ABILITY39@ ote | ERE mbaQia.... . .Os008 Be ee ae. ABILITY331 #0,0862 0.236 0.064 #02030 20.008 ABILITY332 ; es eee. eee Senne... _.. 00104 90090 ss we 238 ABILITY333 0,148 0,082 02103 0.013 ABILITY334 _ 0,100 we est 0,013 eek: eee | a ABILITY335 0.177 0.104 #0.000 0,005 ABILITY336 ‘ i, ls A cpaacnudes RO eee Meo eee ee ABILI1Y337 20elll 02202 #02030 ABILITY3386 ese = oad atin ne Oe en. ABILITY339 20,058 #02090 0.087 ABILITY340 , soa 292205 ia: "ee ABILITY341 0.163 ABILITY342 ABILITY343 ABILITY344 ABILITY345 ABILITY346 ABILITY347 ABILITY348 can oe RE Sn ee Ro ABILITY349 #0,037 00.377 0.019 ABILITY350 eee ea ABILITY351 0.109 #0.117 0,040 ABILITY352 ; 0.100 see SET _ 902e059_. ABILITY353 0.019 0.085 -0,038 ABILITY354 ae Sindee) | Mepeeemes Fy. Raremerernte | | Ramee ABILITY355 @-0,051 -0,026 0.287 ABILITY357 ~0,086 0,077 #0,052 ABILITY356 0.101 0.919 O2127 : : 202034 ABILITY359 ' =0,028 70.104 0343 02100 ABILITY360 a On506 2... Bae a a eee ees )! cae geome, Fe ABILITY361 0,059 0,937 0,705 3 0,006 0.028 #0,077 ABILITY362 0.495 02946 #92009 mee piece Mea ABILITY363 0,560 0,147 0,100 0,139 0.002 0.129 ABILITY364 0.365 0.214 QO.117 0,182 20-007. 0.024 ABILITY365 0.444 -0,161 0,090 0,009 #02032 0,068 ABILITY 366 0.400 ie: A eee Hae #0,052. ue 61426. ou Be SF8 ... ABILITY367 0,131 0,114 0,049 0.164 #02093 #0.094 ABILITY368 0.416 #0158 0,089 20.055 02006 06020 ITERATIVE FA OF SUPERIOR ABILITIES VERIMAX FACTORS OF fF SUP POSITION _ _ LABEL ~~ ABILITY236 _ABILITY237 ABILITY2386 ABILITY239 ABILITY240 ABILITY241 ABILITY242 _ ABILITY243 ABILITY244 ABILITY24¢5 | ABILITY246 ASILITY2467 ABILITY246 _ABILITY269 ABILITY250 ABUT VeS ABILITY252 ABILITY253 _ ABILITY254 __ 20 _ __ _ ABIL TY255 _ 21 ABILITY256 22..—s_—ss ABIL IT Y257 23 ABILITY258 _ABILETY259___ ABILITY260 ABILITY261 ABILITY262 _ ABILITY263 ABILITY264 eas. ABILITY266 ABILIJTY267 ABILITY268 ABILITY269 ABILITY270 ABILITY271 ABILITY305 ABILITY306 ABILITY307 _ ABILITY308 ABILITY309 _ ABILITY3}0O_ ABILITY311 ABILITY3}2 ABILITY313 ABILITY314. ABILITY315 eT Tis. ABILITY317 ABILITY318 ae 19 ITERATIVE FA OF SUPERIOR ABILITIES YERIMAX FACTORS OF FSUP FILE VF SUP POSITION LABEL ABILITY319 ABILITY320 ABILITY321 ABILITY322 ABILITY323 ABILITY324 ABILITY325 ABILITY326 ABILITY327 ABILITY328 ABILITY329 ABILITY330 ABILITY331 ABILITY332 ABILITY333 ABILITY334 ABILITY335 ABILITY336 ABILITY337 ABILITY338 ABILITY339 ABILITY340 ABILITY341 ABILITY342 ABILITY343 ABILITY344 ABILITY345 ABILITY346 ABILITY347 ABILITY348 ABILITY349 ABILITY350 ABILITY351 ABILITY352 ABILITY353 ABILITY354 ABILITY355 ABILITY356 ABILITY357 ABILITY358 ABILITY359 ABILITY360 ABILITY361 ABILITY362 AEILITY363 ABILITY364 ABILITY365 ABILITY366 ABILITY367 ABILITY368 _ITERATIVE FA OF SUPERIOR ABILITIES __ VERIMAX FACTORS OF FSUP POSITIC. LABEL ABILITY369 ABILITY370 ABILITY371 ABILITY372 TERATIVE FA OF SUPERIOR ABILITIES _.VERIMAX FACTORS OF FSUP QSITILON LABEL ABILITY369 ABILITY370 ABILITY371 ABILITY372 ABILITY369 ABILITY370 ABILITY371 ABILITY372 coaee * ‘Lil 0,044 <* . e 0.191 20.052 “tle tis _. 29.017 0,062 2%, 044 ES 0,015 0.147 — 202032 ——< anor ~~ Bee LITE