Further investigation of common knowledge effects on job analysis ratings.

Abstract

Previous research (Smith & Hakel, 1979) raised the possibility that the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ) only captures common knowledge, or stereotypes, about jobs, Cornelius, DeNisi, and Blencoe (1984) presented data to refute this, but found that the number of PAQ items rated docs not apply (DNA) was related to the agreement between naive raters and expert raters. The present study used data from 87 analysts and 24 jobs. Naive ratings were those obtained from analysts who had not studied the job, whereas expert ratings were those obtained from raters who had observed the job, interviewed incumbents, and written task statements describing the job. These ratings were then compared to target-score profiles obtained from PAQ services. Results confirmed earlier hypotheses that large numbers of DNA items artifactually inflate correlational estimates of agreement between expert and naive raters. In addition to this artifact, results also supported the view that the PAQ is less appropriate as a job analysis tool for some types of jobs. Implications for research and practice are discussed. Recently, questions have been raised about the validity of ratings obtained on structured job analysis instruments. The validity of these ratings has generally been taken for granted; however, given the range of applications for these ratings, these questions represent potentially serious problems for human resource practitioners and researchers. Most of the attention in this area has focused on the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ; McCormick, Jeanneret, & Mecham, 1972). The PAQ is the most frequently used job analysis instrument in the published literature (Cornelius, 1987), and so it follows that there should be a great deal of concern about the validity of the data generated by the PAQ. Furthermore, PAQ ratings have been used in a variety of applications, such as those concerned with establishing wage and salary levels for jobs (Robinson, Wahlstrom, & Mecham, 1974), identifying aptitude tests that can be used as valid selection devices (McCormick, DeNisi, & Shaw, 1977), and establishing job classification systems (Taylor, 1978).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 35 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.