AN EVALUATION OF METHODS TO SELECT RESPONDENTS TO STRUCTURED JOB‐ANALYSIS QUESTIONNAIRES

SAMUEL B. GREEN, THOMAS STUTZMAN

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

38 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose was to evaluate methods for selecting respondents who would respond accurately to items on a job‐analysis questionnaire. One general method involved obtaining from employees measures that assessed background, performance, and organizational information. This information could be used to identify respondents who were knowledgeable about the job and, therefore, able to rate the job accurately. A second general method involved collecting job‐analysis data from all potential job‐analysis respondents and, on the basis of indices computed on these data, selecting a subsample from them. Two indices were investigated: (1) the D index, which assessed similarity between an individual's ratings and the population's mean ratings, and (2) the carelessness index, which measured an individual's tendency to rate tasks known to be unrelated to the focal job as important. Both methods were applied to a sample of 343 mental‐health workers. Four general postulates for job analysts were proposed on the basis of the results: (1) Different selection measures yield somewhat different job‐analysis respondents. (2) Respondents are not equally accurate and, with the use of the carelessness index, may be screened for the tendency to make errors. (3) In some applications, the number of sampled respondents needs to be greater than three in order to obtain reliable results. (4) To the degree that the job is ill‐defined and unstable, the selection of job‐analysis respondents assumes greater importance and is riskier.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)543-564
Number of pages22
JournalPersonnel Psychology
Volume39
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1986
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Questionnaire
Evaluation
Surveys and Questionnaires
Rating
Population
Employees
Analysts
Workers
Mental health

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Applied Psychology
  • Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Cite this

AN EVALUATION OF METHODS TO SELECT RESPONDENTS TO STRUCTURED JOB‐ANALYSIS QUESTIONNAIRES. / GREEN, SAMUEL B.; STUTZMAN, THOMAS.

In: Personnel Psychology, Vol. 39, No. 3, 01.01.1986, p. 543-564.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

GREEN, SAMUEL B. ; STUTZMAN, THOMAS. / AN EVALUATION OF METHODS TO SELECT RESPONDENTS TO STRUCTURED JOB‐ANALYSIS QUESTIONNAIRES. In: Personnel Psychology. 1986 ; Vol. 39, No. 3. pp. 543-564.
@article{7b646b37efd348d68d3a7e3589f73b96,
title = "AN EVALUATION OF METHODS TO SELECT RESPONDENTS TO STRUCTURED JOB‐ANALYSIS QUESTIONNAIRES",
abstract = "The purpose was to evaluate methods for selecting respondents who would respond accurately to items on a job‐analysis questionnaire. One general method involved obtaining from employees measures that assessed background, performance, and organizational information. This information could be used to identify respondents who were knowledgeable about the job and, therefore, able to rate the job accurately. A second general method involved collecting job‐analysis data from all potential job‐analysis respondents and, on the basis of indices computed on these data, selecting a subsample from them. Two indices were investigated: (1) the D index, which assessed similarity between an individual's ratings and the population's mean ratings, and (2) the carelessness index, which measured an individual's tendency to rate tasks known to be unrelated to the focal job as important. Both methods were applied to a sample of 343 mental‐health workers. Four general postulates for job analysts were proposed on the basis of the results: (1) Different selection measures yield somewhat different job‐analysis respondents. (2) Respondents are not equally accurate and, with the use of the carelessness index, may be screened for the tendency to make errors. (3) In some applications, the number of sampled respondents needs to be greater than three in order to obtain reliable results. (4) To the degree that the job is ill‐defined and unstable, the selection of job‐analysis respondents assumes greater importance and is riskier.",
author = "GREEN, {SAMUEL B.} and THOMAS STUTZMAN",
year = "1986",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00952.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
pages = "543--564",
journal = "Personnel Psychology",
issn = "0031-5826",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - AN EVALUATION OF METHODS TO SELECT RESPONDENTS TO STRUCTURED JOB‐ANALYSIS QUESTIONNAIRES

AU - GREEN, SAMUEL B.

AU - STUTZMAN, THOMAS

PY - 1986/1/1

Y1 - 1986/1/1

N2 - The purpose was to evaluate methods for selecting respondents who would respond accurately to items on a job‐analysis questionnaire. One general method involved obtaining from employees measures that assessed background, performance, and organizational information. This information could be used to identify respondents who were knowledgeable about the job and, therefore, able to rate the job accurately. A second general method involved collecting job‐analysis data from all potential job‐analysis respondents and, on the basis of indices computed on these data, selecting a subsample from them. Two indices were investigated: (1) the D index, which assessed similarity between an individual's ratings and the population's mean ratings, and (2) the carelessness index, which measured an individual's tendency to rate tasks known to be unrelated to the focal job as important. Both methods were applied to a sample of 343 mental‐health workers. Four general postulates for job analysts were proposed on the basis of the results: (1) Different selection measures yield somewhat different job‐analysis respondents. (2) Respondents are not equally accurate and, with the use of the carelessness index, may be screened for the tendency to make errors. (3) In some applications, the number of sampled respondents needs to be greater than three in order to obtain reliable results. (4) To the degree that the job is ill‐defined and unstable, the selection of job‐analysis respondents assumes greater importance and is riskier.

AB - The purpose was to evaluate methods for selecting respondents who would respond accurately to items on a job‐analysis questionnaire. One general method involved obtaining from employees measures that assessed background, performance, and organizational information. This information could be used to identify respondents who were knowledgeable about the job and, therefore, able to rate the job accurately. A second general method involved collecting job‐analysis data from all potential job‐analysis respondents and, on the basis of indices computed on these data, selecting a subsample from them. Two indices were investigated: (1) the D index, which assessed similarity between an individual's ratings and the population's mean ratings, and (2) the carelessness index, which measured an individual's tendency to rate tasks known to be unrelated to the focal job as important. Both methods were applied to a sample of 343 mental‐health workers. Four general postulates for job analysts were proposed on the basis of the results: (1) Different selection measures yield somewhat different job‐analysis respondents. (2) Respondents are not equally accurate and, with the use of the carelessness index, may be screened for the tendency to make errors. (3) In some applications, the number of sampled respondents needs to be greater than three in order to obtain reliable results. (4) To the degree that the job is ill‐defined and unstable, the selection of job‐analysis respondents assumes greater importance and is riskier.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0000878950&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0000878950&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00952.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00952.x

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 543

EP - 564

JO - Personnel Psychology

JF - Personnel Psychology

SN - 0031-5826

IS - 3

ER -