Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$108.00



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 R1
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 R1
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 R1

OCR for page R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
~ 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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1

OCR for page R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1