|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2010. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
WORK
JOBS,A~D
OCCtlPA[IONS:
A Critical Review of the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles
ANN R. MILLER
DONALD J. TREIMAN
PAMELA S. CAIN
PATRICIA A. ROOS
Editors
Committee on Occupational Classification
and Analysis
Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1980
OCR for page R2
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board
of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the Councils of the
National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of
Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their
special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures
approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916
to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of
furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. The Council operates in
accordance with general policies determined by the Academy under the authority of its
Congressional charter of 1863, which establishes the Academy as a private, non-profit, self-
governing membership corporation. The Council has become the principal operating agency
of both the Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in the conduct of
their services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities.
It is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. The Academy of
Engineering and the Institute of Medicine were established in 1964 and 1970, respectively,
under the charter of the Academy of Sciences.
The material in this project was prepared under grant no. 21-11-77-35 from the Employment
and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, under the authority of Title III,
Part B. of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973. Researchers
undertaking such projects under government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely
their professional judgment. Therefore, points of view or opinions stated in this document do
not necessarily represent the official position or policy of the Department of Labor.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
National Research Council. Committee on Occupational
Classification and Analysis.
Work, Jobs, and Occupations.
Bibliography: p.
1. United States. Employment Service. Dictionary of occupational titles. 2. United
States Occupations. 3. Occupations Dictionaries. 4. Occupations Classification. I. Mil
ler, Ann Ratner. II. Title.
HB2595.N37 1980 331.7'003 80-24653
ISBN 0-309-03093-5
Available from
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
COMMITTEE ON OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION AND
ANALYSIS
ANN R. MILLER (Chairman), Population Studies Center, University of
Pennsylvania
DAVID P. CAMPBELL, Vice President of Research and Programs, Center
for Creative Leadership
MARY DUNLAP, University of Texas School of Law
G. FRANKEIN EDWARDS, Department of Sociology and Anthropology,
Howard University
RICHARD C. EDWARDS, Department of Economics, University of Massa-
chusetts
LEON FESTINGER, Department of Psychology, New School for Social
Research
GARY D. GOTTFREDSON, Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns
Hopkins University
JOHN A. HARTIGAN, Department of Statistics, Yale University
DORIS P. HAYWOOD, Assistant Vice President, Human Resources
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
WESLEY R. LIEBTAG, Director of Personnel Programs, International
Business Machines Corporation
ROBERT E. B. LUCAS, Department of Economics, Boston University
KAREN O. MASON, Population Studies Center, University of Michigan
ERNEST I. MCCORMICK (Professor Emeritus), Department of Psychological
Sciences, Purdue University
GUS TYLER, Assistant President, International Ladies Garment Workers
Union
STAFF
DONALD I. TREIMAN, Study Director
PAMELA S. CAIN, Research Associate
HEIDI I. HARTMANN, Research Associate
PATRICIA A. ROOS, Research Associate
MONICA K. SINDING, Research Associate
CHARLES F. TURNER, Research Associate
JUNE PRICE, Research Assistant
ROSE S. KAUFMAN, Administrative Secretary
BENITA ANDERSON, Secretary
· . .
zz!
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
Contents
PREFACE, xix
1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY, 1
INTRODUCTION, 1
Charge to the Committee, 2
Organization of the Report, 4
SUMMARY, 4
Content and Structure of the DOT, 4
Use of the DOT by the Employment Service, 5
Use of the DOT Outside the Employment Service, 6
The Occupational Analysis Program, 7
Production of the Fourth Edition DOT, 8
Assessment of the Occupational Information in the
DOT, 9
The Classification of Occupations for Job-Worker
Matching, 1 1
Conclusions and Recommendations, 13
Data Collection Procedures, 14
Measurement of Occupational Characteristics, 14
Classification Issues, 15
v
OCR for page R6
Vl
Contents
Other Needed Research, 15
Organizational and Administrative Issues, 15
Supplementary Materials, 16
2 THE FOURTH EDITION DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL
TITLES: STRUCTURE AND CONTENT, 18
OCCUPATIONAL TITLES, 18
THE DOT CODE, 1 9
INDUSTRY DESIGNATION, 25
DEFINITIONS, 25
ADDITIONAL FEATURES, 27
RELATED PUBLICATIONS, 27
SUMMARY, 30
USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES BY
THE U.S. EMPLOYMENT SERVICE, 31
USE OF THE DOT IN PLACEMENT AND COUNSELING, 32
A Source of Occupational Information, 32
Placement, 33
Self-Referral, 34
Interviewer Referral, 34
Counseling, 35
Evaluation of DOT Use, 37
OTHER USES OF THE DOT, 40
Testing, 40
Labor Certification, 42
SUMMARY, 43
OCR for page R7
Contents
4 USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES
OUTSIDE THE U.S. EMPLOYMENT SERVICE, 45
COLLECTING DATA ON DOT USES, 46
Description of the Universe, 46
Sampling Design, 46
Probability Survey of DOT Purchasers, 47
Interviews, Case Studies, and a Survey
of Institutional Users, 49
Survey of Researchers, 50
Timetable of Survey Procedures, 50
INSTITUTIONAL USES OF THE DOT: A SAMPLE OF
PURCHASERS, 5 1
How the DOT is Used, 53
How Essential is the DOT?, 57
Adequacy of the DOT, 59
GOVERNMENT USES OF THE DOT, 63
Interview Results, 63
Employment Training and Production of Occupational
Information, 63
Disability Determination, 68
Rehabilitation and Employment Counseling, 70
Vocational and Occupational Education, 72
Other Users of the DOT, 74
Department of Defense, 74
Office of Personnel Management, 75
Development of the Standard Occupational
Classification, 76
Bureau of the Census, 76
STATE GOVERNMENT USERS: THE SOICC GROUP, 77
RESEARCH USES OF THE DOT, 81
Classification, 8 1
Job Titles and Definitions, 82
· ~
V11
OCR for page R8
· · ~
V111
Worker Traits and Worker Functions, 82
Data, People, and Things, 82
Training Time, 83
Other Worker Traits, 84
Use of DOT Concepts in Other Scales and
Classifications, 84
Evaluation of DOT Data, 86
USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF OTHER OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS
PRODUCTS, 87
Occupational Analysis Branch, 88
Job Search Branch, 89
SUMMARY, 9 1
5 ORGANIZATION OF THE OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS
PROGRAM OF THE U.S. EMPLOYMENT SERVICE, 93
INTRODUCTION, 93
THE OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS BRANCH, 95
THE JOB SEARCH BRANCH, 9 8
THE OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS FIELD CENTERS, 100
Overview: Organization, 101
Staffing and Organization of Work, 103
Functional Specialization of the Field Centers, 104
Major Field Center Activities, 107
Production of the DOT, 107
Career Guides and Brochures, 108
Training and Technical Assistance, 109
Special Projects, 110
CONCLUSION, 1 12
Contents
OCR for page R9
Contents
6 PROCEDURES USED TO PRODUCE THE FOURTH
EDITION DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES, 114
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, 115
SAMPLING FOR THE DOT, 115
Assignment of Industries to Field Centers, 116
Establishment Selection, 118
JOB ANALYSIS PROCEDURES, 120
Staffing Schedule and Organization and Process
Flow Charts, 121
Job Analysis, 124
Writing the Job Description and Assigning
a DOT Code, 126
Rating Worker Traits, 132
Completing an Establishment Study, 139
Modifications of Procedures, 140
Definition Writing for the DOT, 141
CONCLUSION, 1 45
7 AN ASSESSMENT OF THE DICTIONARY OF
OCCUPA TIONAL TITLES AS A SOURCE OF
OCCUPATIONAL INFORMATION, 148
INTRODUCTION, 148
SAMPLING PROCEDURES, 149
SOURCE DATA, 1 5 5
RATINGS OF WORKER FUNCTIONS AND WORKER TRAITS, 164
Validity, 164
Reliability, 168
OCCUPATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS, 173
The Factor Structure, 176
Sex Bias in the Rating of Occupations, 188
CONCLUSION, 1 9 1
IX
OCR for page R10
x
Contents
8 THE CLASSIFICATION OF OCCUPATIONS: A REVIEW OF
SELECTED SYSTEMS, 196
THE CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE OF THE DOT, 196
Creating Occupational Titles, 197
Grouping Occupations, 198
The DOT Code: The First Three Digits, 199
The DOT Code: The Second Three Digits, 200
Summary, 201
The Keyword System of the Employment Service, 201
EXISTING ALTERNATIVE CLASSIFICATIONS FOR
JOB-WORKER MATCHING, 201
Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment, 203
Holland Classification of Careers, 204
Summary, 206
A MOBILITY-BASED APPROACH TO JOB-WORKER MATCHING, 206
Advantages and Disadvantages, 208
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION
FOR NOB-WORKER MATCHING, 210
Other Methodologies, 210
A Research Program for Developing Classifications, 211
CONCLUSION, 2 12
9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 214
CONCLUSIONS, 2 14
Dictionary, 2 15
Classification, 216
Occupational Characteristics, 216
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS, 217
OCR for page R11
Contents
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS, 220
Data Collection Procedures, 220
Measurement of Occupational Characteristics, 224
Classification Issues, 226
Other Needed Research, 229
Organizational and Administrative Issues, 231
APPENDIXES, 235
A MATERIALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USER SURVEY, 237
Xl
B SITE VISITS TO SELECTED FEDERAL USERS OF THE Dictionary of
Occupational Titles, 250
Patricia A. Roos
BUREAU OF APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING, 250
Using the DOT to Evaluate the Apprenticeability of Occupations,
251
Adequacy of the DOT, 253
BUREAU OF DISABILITY INSURANCE, 254
Using the DOT to Determine Disability Awards, 255
Adequacy of the DOT, 257
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, 258
Using the DOT in Counseling and Rehabilitation, 258
Adequacy of the DOT, 260
C ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RESEARCH USES OF THE
Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 262
June Price
D SELECTED MATERIALS PREPARED BY THE DIVISION OF
OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS, U.s. EMPLOYMENT SERVICE, 305
PUBLICATIONS OF THE DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL
ANALYSIS SINCE 1965, 305
National Office: Division of Occupational Analysis, 305
Serial Publications, 307
California Occupational Analysis Field Center, 307
OCR for page R12
X11
Michigan Occupational Analysis Field Center, 308
Missouri Occupational Analysis Field Center, 309
New York Occupational Analysis Field Center, 311
North Carolina Occupational Analysis Field Center, 312
Texas Occupational Analysis Field Center, 312
Utah Occupational Analysis Field Center, 312
Washington Occupational Analysis Field Center, 313
Wisconsin Occupational Analysis Field Center, 313
E THE RATING OF DOT WORKER FUNCTIONS AND WORKER
TRAITS, 315
Pamela S. Cain and Bert F. Green, Jr.
STUDY DESIGN, 316
RESULTS, 319
TECHNICAL NOTE, 329
F DOT SCALES FOR THE 1970 CENSUS CLASSIFICATION, 336
Patricia A. Roos and Donald J. Treiman
CENSUS SCORES FOR EIGHT DOT VARIABLES, 337
CENSUS SCORES FOR FOUR FACTOR-BASED SCALES, 338
G USING COMPUTERS TO MATCH WORKERS AND JOBS: A
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE U.s. EMPLOYMENT
SERVICE'S AUTOMATED MATCHING SYSTEM, 390
Charles F. Turner
AUTOMATION AND JOB-WORKER MATCHING IN THE
EMPLOYMENT SERVICE, 392
DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEMS, 393
Contents
KEYWORDING: THE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE MATCHING SYSTEM,
395
Description, 396
Evaluating Keyword Matching, 400
Use of Information, 402
The Definition of Similarity, 405
Adequacy of the Occupational Unit Division, 406
Diversity of Computer Hardware and Languages, 408
CONCLUSION, 409
OCR for page R13
Contents
H USING MOBILITY DATA TO DEVELOP OCCUPATIONAL
CLASSIFICATIONS: EXPLORATORY EXERCISES, 41 1
John A. Hartigan
STANDARDIZED RATES AND PROBABILITY MODELS, 4 1 2
CLUSTERING ANALYSES, 4 1 4
CAREER LADDERS, 4 1 5
FEASIBILITY, 4 1 8
REFERENCES, 419
· . .
X111
OCR for page R14
Tables
DOT Titles: Description and Frequency, 20
Distribution of DOT Purchasers, by Type of Employer (N = 309),
52
Distribution of DOT Purchasers, by Type of Work (N = 307), 52
Percentage Distribution of DOT Purchasers Engaged in Various
Types of Work, by Type of Employer, 54
4-4 Percentage of DOT Purchasers Using Component Parts of the
DOT, by Type of Work, 55
4-5 Percentage of DOT Purchasers Who Would Experience Disruption
of Work if DOT Were Discontinued, by Type of Work, 56
4-6 Percentage of DOT Purchasers Who Use Other Occupational
Information, by Type of Work, 60
4-7 Percentage Distribution of Judgments of Adequacy of the DOT for
Main Purpose, 62
4-8 Percentage of DOT Purchasers Desiring Specified Improvement, by
Type of Work, 64
4-9 Percentage Distribution of Type of Work, by Type of Employer,
SOICC Group, 78
4-10 Percentage of SOICC Group Using Component Parts of the DOT,
by Type of Work, 80
4-11 Percentage Using Other Occupational Analysis (OA) Products, 90
6- 1 Field Center Industry Assignments, 117
6-2 Worker Trait Summary, 132
6-3 Definition Writing Assignments, 141
xiv
OCR for page R15
Tables
xv
7-1 Percentage Distribution of Establishments by SIC Industry Divi-
sion: Comparison of DOT Sample and U.S. Labor Force, 152
Percentage Distribution of Establishments by Employment-Size
Class: Comparison of DOT Sample and U.S. Labor Force, 153
Comparison of Percentage Distributions of DOT Titles and Labor
Force by DOT Occupational Categories, 155
7-4 Percentage Distribution of DOT Titles by Major Group: The DOT
versus the Booz, Allen & Hamilton Sample, 157
7-5 Percentage Distribution of DOT Titles by Number and Type of
Supporting Documentation, 158
7-6 Percentage Distribution of Job Analysis Schedules by Selected
Characteristics for Selected Periods, 160
Percentage Distribution of Job Analysis Schedules, by Selected
Characteristics and Type of Job, 162
7-8 The DOT Occupational Characteristics, Fourth Edition, 165
7-9 Reliability Estimates for Selected DOT Variables, 170
7-10 Estimated Reliabilities, by Type of Occupation, 172
7-11 Descriptive Statistics for Fourth Edition DOT Occupational Char-
acteristics, 174
7-12 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Coefficients for DOT
Variables, 178
7-13 Factor Loadings: Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix, 184
7-14 Factor Analysis of Fourth Edition DOT Occupational Characteris-
tics: Items and Loadings for Six Major Factors, 186
7- 15 Changes in the Scoring of DATA, PEOPLE, and THINGS
Between the Third and Fourth Editions of the DOT, 192
E-1
Sources of Variation in Ratings of Occupational Characteristics,
317
E-2 Complete Analysis of Variance for DATA, 320
E-3 Complete Analysis of Variance for PEOPLE, 321
E-4
Analysis of Variance Results: Degrees of Freedom and Mean
Squares, 322
Variance Components for Significant Effects and Estimated Relia-
bilities, 323
E-6 Estimated Reliabilities, by Type of Occupation, 327
E-7 Rater Consensus by Occupation: Proportion of Modal Responses,
330
E-8 Correlation of Raters With the Average of All Other Raters, Across
Occupations by Job Description Set, 332
F-1 Worker Function and Selected Worker Trait Scores for 1970 U.S.
Census Occupational Categories, 340
OCR for page R16
XVI
Tables
F-2 Factor-Based Scale Scores for 1970 U.S. Census Occupational
Categories, 365
F-3 Decision Rules for Assigning DOT Scores to Missing Occupational
Categories, 387
F-4 Factor Loadings: Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix, 389
G- 1 Estimate of the Distribution of the National Labor Force by
Keyword Occupational Units, 397
H-1 Single-Linkage Clusters, 416
OCR for page R17
F.
1gures
2-1 Parts of the DOT code, 21
2-2 Definitions of the worker function scales represented in the fourth,
fifth, and sixth digits of the DOT code, 22
2-3 Examples of the four categories of information as the basis of the
DOT definition, 26
2-4 Parts of a DOT definition, 28
4-1 Distribution of the fourth edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles,
48
5-1 Organizational structure of the occupational analysis program, 97
6-1 Staffing schedule, 122
6-2 Job analysis schedule, 127
6-3 Scale for general educational development (GED), 134
6-4 Scale for specific vocational preparation (svP), 137
6-5 Aptitude factors and rating scale, 138
6-6 Temperament factors, 138
6-7 Interest factors, 139
6-8 Worksheet for definition writing, 142
· .
XVII
OCR for page R18
OCR for page R19
Preface
The division of labor the deployment of human resources in the
production of goods and services for society - has engaged the attention of
social observers throughout recorded history. For most of this time a
limited number of terms for describing traditional activities were sufficient
to convey to all the nature of the work performed. But the increased
complexity of the division of labor that accompanied what is commonly
known as the industrial revolution altered the situation; and the
proliferation of services that has become the mark of postindustrial society
has continued to exacerbate the difficulty of comprehending the nature of
the tasks included in a given occupational title. Moreover, the continuous
impact of technological innovation has meant that the work content of a
specific occupation may change dramatically although its title remains
unaltered. Many years ago the compilers of the pioneer A Dictionary of
Occupational Terms (Great Britain Ministry of Labour, 1927) observed
that "tympany industries are passing through a period of transition, so that
the same occupational term may still be applied, for example, to handicraft
workers, carrying through an entire series of manual operations, and to
factory hands tending a machine and working under conditions of high
specialization." Their example may be less pertinent now than it was in the
Britain of the 1920s, but the problem they refer to remains as critical as it
was then.
More than 100 years ago the U.S. Bureau of the Census began grouping
occupational titles, which had previously been merely listed, in its
publications in order to clarify the nature of the work performed.
x~x
OCR for page R20
xx
Preface
Throughout this century the Census Bureau has published, as an integral
part of each census, a classified index of occupational titles included in
each of its published occupational units and has continued to group the
units into broad occupational categories. But the Census Bureau has never
attempted to provide descriptions of its categories or of its units.
As chapter 1 notes, when the U.S. Employment Service was first
established, it too relied on occupational titles for matching job seekers
with jobs, but it was quickly apparent that the lack of standardized
descriptions hindered the accomplishment of this task, and the compila-
tion of the first American Dictionary of Occupational Titles began almost
immediately. For the matching of workers and jobs in a system involving
thousands of titles, however, it is clearly not enough merely to describe
activities; it is also necessary to arrange the units defined in an order
helpful in illuminating the relationship of the nature of the work in one
unit to that in others. The resulting arrangement is, then, a classification
system, organized according to certain principles, assumed or demon-
strated, about key elements in the nature of work.
These two components the definition of units and their classification-
compose a standard approach to the understanding of observed phenome-
na, a method by which large quantities of information have traditionally
been reduced to manageable proportions. Recently, however, the develop-
ment of the computer has introduced new ways of processing information
and has raised questions about the continuing usefulness of the standard
approach, at least for purposes of job placement.
In 1977 the U.S. Employment Service published a new edition of the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), the latest in a series going back
some 40 years. In planning the allocation of its resources for the 1980s,
officials of the U.S. Employment Service decided that the publication of
the new edition provided an appropriate occasion for evaluating the
program underlying the DOT. Specifically, they requested the National
Academy of Sciences to review whether "computerization" obviated the
need for such a document in the operations of the Employment Service;
whether there was a wider need for the information provided; and
whether, if the program and its products were continued, the current
procedures and assumptions were adequate or required substantial
revision. The Committee on Occupational Classification and Analysis was
established by the National Research Council's Assembly of Behavioral
and Social Sciences to respond to this request. This report presents the
results of the committee's investigation and the recommendations that
arose from our deliberations.
The committee was very fortunate in being able to persuade Donald J.
Treiman to take leave from the University of California, Los Angeles, in
OCR for page R21
Preface
XXI
order to be our study director. He supervised and coordinated the project,
made major substantive contributions to the analytic design of the study,
and contributed significantly to the writing throughout the report.
Treiman assembled a very competent staff, to all of whom we are
indebted. The committee was simultaneously conducting a study for the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, so there was some division
of labor between the two tasks, but all staff members participated actively
in the discussions and reviews of successive drafts of the report. Pamela S.
Cain had primary responsibility for assembling the material on the
procedures used in creating the DOT and the evaluation of these
procedures. Patricia A. Roos was responsible for conducting the user
surveys and analyzing the results, for describing the use of the DOT within
the Employment Service (a task to which Charles Turner also contrib-
uted), and for preparing the materials on the use of the DOT by other
government agencies (a task to which Monica K. Sinding also contrib-
uted). Charles F. Turner prepared preliminary analyses of data on labor
mobility, which served as the basis for discussion of the DOT classification
system. Heidi I. Hartmann contributed to the writing and revision efforts
at many points in the report, particularly the sections on classification and
on the organization of the occupational analysis program. June Price
prepared materials on the research uses of the DOT.
The committee's thanks also go to Eugenia Grohman for her advice and
to Christine L. McShane for her excellent editing of the final draft. Our
administrative secretary, Rose S. Kaufman, with the help of Benita
Anderson, performed crucial services in preparing the manuscripts and in
arranging our meetings with efficiency and dispatch.
All members of the committee reviewed the numerous drafts of the
report. Gary D. Gottfredson and John A. Hartigan were particularly
helpful in their contributions to the material on classification. Ernest J.
McCormick's long experience with the issues involved in job analysis and
job placement was invaluable to our discussions.
ANN R. MIEEER, Chair
Committee on Occupational
Classification and Analysis
OCR for page R22
