Reevaluation of a weighted application blank for office personnel.

The validity of weighted application blank scores in predicting length of service of female office personnel of a large midwestern manufacturing company showed a slow but consistent decline from 1954 to 1959. After reweighting the application blank variables by the usual procedure, a Pearson r of .39 was obtained between WAB scores and tenure on a cross-validation sample of 208 individuals. Only 3 variables (high proficiency at shorthand; did not leave last job because of pregnancy, marriage, sickness, or home problems; and will begin work on the new job 1 week or more from now) retained their predictive validity from 1954 to 1959. Some of the variables were assigned different weights, and others were given weights for the 1st time. It was recommended that weights assigned to application blank responses be reviewed at least every 3-5 years. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

CSP-based object-oriented description and simulation of a reconfigurable adaptive beamforming architecture using the OODRA workbench

Application of the Object-Oriented Design of Reliable/Reconfigurable Architectures (OODRA) workbench to the performance simulation of a reconfigurable adaptive digital beamforming architecture is described in this paper. The performance effects due to chip/wafer partitioning and reconfiguration for fault tolerance and yield enhancement are presented. The experiments described illustrate use of the OODRA workbench in architectural-level performance evaluation of algorithm-specific reconfigurable architectures, particularly for signal processing applications.This research was supported in part by SDIO/IST and managed by the Office of Naval Research under contract N00014-89-K-0070 and in part by the Semiconductor Research Corporation under Contract 88-DP-109. Portions of this paper were presented at the IEEE International Conference on Wafer Scale Integration, January 1989, and the ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, June 1989.     

A systems view of job satisfaction.

Analysis of the controversy surrounding the unidimensional vs. 2-factor assertions about employee job satisfaction indicates that extrinsic factors must be viewed as the causes of intrinsic factors. (17 ref.). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The meaning of money.

Conducted an exploratory study to determine whether groups of persons who are clearly distinguishable on the basis of biography show measurable differences in what money means to them. Values about money were measured via a modified semantic differential in 11 different groups (N = 533) including hard-core trainees, employed persons, and college students. Results indicate that there are a variety of such differences and that these differences may be modified by work experience, sex, and socioeconomic level. Results are related to theories about money and motivation. The possibility of developing a variety of modifications in personnel practices in business is noted. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comparison of sources of personal satisfaction and of work motivation: Erratum.

Reports an error in the original article by P. F. Wernimont et al (Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, Vol 54[1, Pt 1], 95-102). Figure 1 on page 99 is corrected. (The following abstract of this article originally appeared in record 1970-05766-001). Determines what differences technical employees see in various job factors, as they affect job effort and job satisfaction. About 775 scientists and technicians ranked personal accomplishment, praise for good work, getting along with co-workers, company location, and receiving credit for ideas as having a greater impact on personal satisfaction. Knowing what is expected of one, having a capable supervisor, having challenging work and responsibility, being kept informed, and participating in decisions, were all given more importance for their effects on motivation or job effort. These results indicate that it is incorrect to use the terms "motivator" and "satisfier" interchangeably. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)