Generalizability analysis of a point method job evaluation instrument: A field study.

Three employee relations workers at an energy resource company evaluated 12 jobs, using an 8-scale point method instrument consisting of 3 factors—skill, responsibility, and work environment. Results confirm earlier findings that jobs, scales, and their interaction provide the major sources of variances in the ratings and that the variance attributable to raters was small. A generalizability coefficient of .92 was found when the analysis was generalized to only 1 random rater. It is suggested that point method job evaluations can exhibit high agreement between raters combined with high discriminability between scales and jobs in organizational settings. (8 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An analysis and evaluation of test and item bias in the prediction context.

Presents a perspective on test and item bias in predicting the performance of individuals in majority and minority groups. It is suggested that a difference between groups in the slope of the regression of the criterion on a test used for prediction represents bias that can frequently be corrected. Given a criterion with adequate measurement properties, the selection of items with essentially equivalent discrimination indices is expected to produce approximately parallel slopes. Accordingly, items having different discrimination indices are themselves biased. Intercept bias, on the other hand, is essentially not under the control of the test constructor. It is argued that the goal of producing a test without intercept bias is an unreasonable one. These problems are illustrated by factor models of intercept bias. It is concluded that relative differences in item-difficulty levels from group to group, given items with adequate discrimination indices, should not be labeled as bias. Such items are not automatic candidates for discard. (13 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Analysis of a job evaluation system.

When supervisors or craftsmen attempt to rate specialists, should they combine their judgments? What is the interrelationship between the parts and what is the reliability of the Air Force's job evaluation system? The latter was tried out on a sample of jobs with 50 Air Force Specialists as Ss. Consensus ratings did not seem necessary. Using too few factors seemed undesirable. A descrepancy was found between the results of 2 measures of reliability, although one, at least, provided fairly high values. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

An experimental investigation of "point" job evaluation systems.

3 raters evaluated a sample of 82 jobs on 17 requirements. The study aim was to determine extent of influence through manipulation or forcing by evaluators. Both forced and unforced conditions were used. 5 factors emerged from the analysis in both conditions, with the 3 predominant factors in each being similar. "Forcing had the effect of increasing the job level variance from 86% in unforced ratings to 98% in forced ratings." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Systematic bias in job evaluation and market wages: Implications for the comparable worth debate.

Evaluated the consequences of systematic measurement errors in job evaluation and in wage distributions used as a criterion in the empirical validation of job evaluation. The way reverse regression combined with conventional regression could be used to identify systematic errors under a restrictive set of assumptions was also demonstrated. It was found that bias against female key or benchmark job wages had the generally hypothesized negative impact on predictions for female non-key job wages. However, systematic evaluation bias of female jobs does not necessarily serve to the wage disadvantage of all female jobs. (17 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An evaluation of measures of synonymous codon usage bias

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether bone quality, as assessed by osteometry and histologic parameters, can be used to predict implant integration in conjunction with maxillary sinus reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Twelve patients with severely atrophied maxillary alveolar processes were treated through use of a two-stage surgical reconstructive strategy with implant placement 4 months after bone grafting. Bone biopsy specimens taken from the iliac crest peroperatively and from the sinus inlay sites 1, 2, 4, 6, or 12 months postoperatively were analyzed by light microscopy and osteomorphometry. Bone mineral content was measured by osteometry. RESULTS: Osteometric and osteomorphometric data (trabecular bone volume [%], assessment of chromatin staining, and an osteocyte index) registered for the biopsy specimens were not statistically correlated with implant failure. CONCLUSIONS: Prognostic evaluation of implant survival is difficult. The tested methods did not contribute to the improvement of guidelines for the clinical handling of these patients.     

Group composition as a determinant of job analysis outcomes.

The purpose of this study was to determine if different groups of job incumbents would provide different job analysis outcomes. Patrolpersons from 12 university police departments served as subjects. Subject-matter-expert groups were formed on the basis of a multidimensional scaling (MDS) procedure, seniority level, and educational level. The job analysis technique used was the critical incident technique. Multivariate analysis of variance indicated that MDS groups differed on ratings and rank orderings of job dimension importance. These MDS group differences were probed via discriminant analysis, which revealed that the MDS groups differed on one discriminant function for the job dimension importance ratings and on two discriminant functions for the job dimension importance rank orderings. The MDS group's discriminant function differences were also related to supervisor rank orderings. Job analysis outcomes were not affected by subject-matter-expert groups of seniority and educational level. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for the job analysis practitioner. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An examination of differences between managerial effectiveness and response patterns on a structured job analysis questionnaire.

Three cost-related measures of effectiveness were obtained for each of 146 store managers. Multivariate ANOVA revealed that no significant differences exist in the way effective and ineffective store managers rated the importance of and time spent on 7 major work activities as well as the importance of 30 worker characteristics needed for successful job performance. (3 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The analysis of an experimental job evaluation system as applied to enlisted naval jobs.

Asample of 103 enlisted naval jobs was evaluated on a 13-factor experimental job evaluation system. For a criterion measure, the jobs were independently ranked on overall difficulty and responsibility. Using the Wherry-Doolittle test selection method on a subsample of 58 jobs, five factors were selected that gave a shrunken multiple R of .968 with the criterion. On a hold-out sample, the prediction equation gave criterion scale values that correlated .937 with the actual criterion scale values. It is suggested that, in the absence of any 'true' criterion of naval job values, overall judgments may well be accepted as a criterion of use in job evaluation research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Removing halo from job evaluation factor structure.

Intercorrelations of job-evaluation ratings were factor analyzed under 2 conditions: (a) the original matrix, produced directly from raters' initial evaluations, and (b) a "reduced" matrix resulting from partialling out job level from all original intercorrelations in the hope of removing a general "halo" factor characteristically emerging from job-rating studies. Comparisons of factors from each matrix showed a definite reduction of halo in the "reduced" matrix, as well as more meaningful factor structures for most factors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments.

Two experiments provided evidence for a disconfirmation bias in argument evaluation such that arguments incompatible with prior beliefs are scrutinized longer, subjected to more extensive refutational analyses, and consequently are judged to be weaker than arguments compatible with prior beliefs. The idea that people are unable to evaluate evidence independently of prior beliefs has been documented elsewhere, including in the classic study by C. G. Lord, L. Ross, and M. R. Lepper (see record 1981-05421-001) . The present findings contribute to this literature by specifying the processes by which prior beliefs affect the evaluation of evidence. The authors compare the disconfirmation model to several other models of how prior beliefs influence current judgments and present data that provide support for the disconfirmation model. Results indicate that whether a person's prior belief is accompanied by emotional conviction affects the magnitude and form of the disconfirmation bias. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)