|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. 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 1
Introduction
and
Summary
INTRODUCTION
During the depression of the 1930s, Congress established a national
employment service to assist workers in finding suitable employment and
employers in finding employees (Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933~. Although
the program of the U.S. Employment Service has undergone significant
changes since the 1930s, its basic aims have not been altered.
A program of occupational research was also initiated "to furnish public
employment offices . . . with information and techniques [to] facilitate
proper classification and placement of work seekers" (U.S. Department of
Labor, 1939:xi). Throughout the 1930s this occupational research program
was conducted under the supervision of a technical board, the majority of
whose members were nominated by the Social Science Research Council
and the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences.
In 1939 this research program produced the first edition of the Dictionary
of Occupational Titles.
Subsequent editions of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles were
produced in 1949, 1965, and 1977. While they vary somewhat in their
coverage of the economy (the first edition being least comprehensive) and
in the details of their structure, each edition was designed to be an
operational tool for use in the day-to-day functioning of Employment
Service offices. Each edition was intended to provide a catalogue of the
occupational titles used in the U.S. economy as well as reliable descriptions
of the type of work performed in each occupation. In the early years,
OCR for page 2
2
WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS
officials of the Employment Service believed a dictionary was of great
practical importance because "getting qualified workers into appropriate
jobs is a task that can be most adequately perfonned when the transition is
based upon a thorough knowledge of both worker and job" (U.S.
Department of Labor, 1939:xi).
Prior to the publication of the first edition of the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles, each local office of the national Employment Service
developed its own information about occupations and gave its own
individual meanings to the job titles used in operating the Employment
Service's placement system (U.S. Department of Labor, 1965a:ix). There
was as a result no unifonn language for the exchange of occupational
information among Employment Service staff within local offices, between
offices in a particular locale, or between the various local offices and the
national office of the Employment Service. Work on the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles was begun to remedy this situation. Subsequent
revisions were undertaken to reflect changes in the occupational composi-
tion of the work force (e.g., the addition of new occupations reflecting
changes in the technologies of production), to improve the accessibility of
information contained in it, and to facilitate job matching.
CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE
Throughout the last 4 decades the occupational titles contained in the
various editions of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles have served as the
Employment Service's basic tool for matching workers and jobs. The
Dictionary of Occupational Titles has also played an important role in
establishing skill and training requirements and developing Employment
Service testing batteries for specific occupations. Recently, however, the
role of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles has been called into question
as a result of planned changes in the operation of the Employment Service.
A' plan to automate the operations of Employment Service offices using
a descriptive system of occupational keywords rather than occupational
titles has led to a claim that a dictionary of occupational titles and the
occupational research program that produces it are outmoded. Since the
automated keyword system does not rely explicitly on defined occupation-
al titles, it is claimed that the new system would reduce costs by
eliminating the need for a research program to supply the occupational
definitions. In fiscal 1977 the program cost almost $3 million.
In light of these considerations the committee was asked to evaluate the
future need for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Neither the
committee nor the Department of Labor confined the question exclusively
to needs within the Employment Service- although the needs of the
OCR for page 3
Introduction and Summary
Employment Service were a primary consideration. It was recognized that
the use of such a dictionary by a wide range of government and private
organizations and individuals might justify its continued production even
if it were no longer a major operating tool of the Employment Service. In
such a case, however, responsibility for the Dictionary of Occupational
Titles and its occupational research program might be reasonably
transferred to an agency other than the Employment Service.
The committee was charged first with deciding whether there is a
continuing need for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The committee
sought to answer this question by (1) surveying purchasers of the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles, (2) interviewing major federal users of
the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, (3) surveying selected state users, (4)
compiling a bibliography of its use in social science research, (5)
interviewing national and state Employment Service staff, and (6) visiting
local Employment Service offices. On the basis of information gathered
from these sources (see chapters 3 and 4) the committee concluded that
there is an important and continuing need for a comprehensive, reliable
catalogue of occupations in the U.S. economy as well as descriptions of the
work performed in each occupation.
The committee was next charged to consider a set of questions
concerning the adequacy and usefulness of the current edition of the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles and the types of research that would be
needed to produce a more reliable and useful document. The committee's
concerns in this regard centered on the reliability and validity of the
occupational data collected and analyzed by the occupational analysis
program of the Employment Service, the usefulness of the classification
structure of the current edition, and the potential for improvement in the
document through revisions in the kinds of data collected and data
collection procedures. The general conclusion of the committee is that the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles requires improvement in a number of
respects to render it fully adequate to meet both the current needs of the
Employment Service and the needs of other users.
The committee was also charged to consider organizational changes
required to produce a more adequate Dictionary of Occupational Titles. In
considering this question the committee benefited from a short-term
management study conducted during the first stage of its work by an
independent contractor to the Employment Service (Booz, Allen &
Hamilton, Inc., 1979~. This study describes the problems inherent in the
organizational structure of the program and informed the committee
concerning changes in staffing and resources that might be required to
produce a more useful and reliable Dictionary of Occupational Titles. In
the committee's judgment the major organizational change required to
OCR for page 4
4
WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS
improve the Dictionary of Occupational Titles is the establishment of a
permanent, professional research unit to develop and carry out an ongoing
program of occupational research in several areas identified by the
committee.
Finally, the committee has undertaken to the extent possible given
constraints of time and resources a conceptual review of the Employ-
ment Service's automated matching program.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
Chapter 2 contains a detailed description of the current edition of the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles to suggest to readers the nature of the
document that is the main focus of the report. Chapters 3 and 4 describe
the ways that the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and associated
materials are used inside and outside the Employment Service. Chapters 5
and 6 describe how the Dictionary of Occupational Titles is produced:
chapter 5 focuses on the organization of the occupational analysis program
of the Employment Service, the unit charged with producing the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles, and chapter 6 describes the process by
which the current edition was created. Chapters 7 and 8 evaluate the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles: chapter 7 focuses on the adequacy of the
data it contains, and chapter 8 discusses the Dictionary of Occupational
Titles and other classification systems as tools for assessing the similarity
of occupations. Chapter 9 presents the committee's conclusions and
recommendations. In addition to the nine chapters of the report there are
eight appendixes providing data or detailed analysis of specific topics.
SUMMARY
CONTENT AND STRUCTURE OF THE DOT
Chapter 2 provides a description of the content and structure of the
current fourth edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). The
DOT contains information on 12,099 occupations and an additional 16,702
related or synonymous occupational titles. Each occupation is identified by
a nine-digit code and is defined on the basis of the tasks performed. The
nine-digit code represents a classification structure based on the type of
work performed (the first three digits) and the complexity of work in
relation to data, people, and things (the second three digits); the final three
OCR for page 5
Introduction arid Summary
5
digits are a unique numerical identification for each occupation. The
chapter also describes briefly a set of 41 occupational characteristics,
known as worker traits, on which infonnation is available for each
occupation (on computer tape and in to-be-published supplements to the
DOT). In the course of developing the occupational description for the
DOT, analysts rate each occupation for these worker traits, which include
the aptitudes, temperaments, and interests necessary for adequate perfor-
mance; the training time necessary to prepare for an occupation; the
physical demands of the occupation; and the working conditions under
which the occupation typically occurs. In sum, the DOT is simultaneously
a dictionary providing definitions of occupations, a classification system,
and a source of data on occupational characteristics.
USE OF THE DOT BY THE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
Chapter 3 describes the major ways in which the DOT iS used within the
Employment Service. First, the DOT provides a classification structure for
organizing information about job openings in self-search job banks located
in local Employment Service offices. Second, the dictionary aspect and, to
a more limited extent, the classification structure are used by placement
interviewers and employment counselors in Employment Service offices as
aids in matching job applicants with job openings. Data on occupational
characteristics (the worker traits and worker functions) are used only
occasionally in the job placement process, mainly by employment
counselors as aids in exploring vocational options.
In addition to its direct use as a placement and counseling tool the DOT
serves as a data source for the preparation of a series of career brochures,
and the classification structure serves to organize the data for the monthly
publication of labor market information by the national office for use in
local Employment Service offices.
Finally, the DOT iS used by the Division of Testing and the Division of
Labor Certification, two subunits of the Employment Service. The
Division of Testing develops tests with a specific orientation toward the
aptitudes, skills, etc. that are relevant to the worker traits identified in the
DOT supplements; these tests are used in local Employment Service offices
for counseling purposes. The Division of Labor Certification uses the DOT
to identify specific occupations for which the demand for workers exceeds
iData are collected on 46 variables, three worker functions (DATA, PEOPLE, and THINGS) and
43 worker traits. However, three of the worker traits, representing aspects of general
educational development (GED), are usually combined into a summary measure of GED.
Hence in many published lists, only 41 worker traits are shown.
OCR for page 6
6
WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS
the available supply of qualified American workers which is the legal
requirement for the certification of foreign workers.
In sum, extensive use is made of the DOT within the Employment
Service.
USE OF THE DOT OUTSIDE THE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
Chapter 4 describes major uses of the DOT outside the Employment
Service. Indication of the extent of such use is provided by the fact that
148,145 copies of the third edition DOT were sold in the course of its 13-
year life (1965-1977) and more than 115,000 copies of the fourth edition
were sold in the first 21 months following publication in December 1977
(not including 30,000 copies distributed within the Employment Service).
To determine the extent and nature of the use of the DOT, committee staff
conducted three studies: a questionnaire survey of a probability sample of
purchasers of the fourth edition DOT; site visits to federal agencies
identified as major users, supplemented by a questionnaire survey of DOT
users in state agencies; and a literature review of social science research
uses of the DOT.
The survey of DOT purchasers revealed that a wide variety of
organizations use the DOT in their work, including educational institu-
tions, government agencies, private for-profit companies, and nonprofit
agencies. These organizations use the DOT for a variety of purposes, the
most prominent being career and vocational counseling, library reference,
rehabilitation counseling, personnel management, and employment place-
ment. The dictionary aspect is most widely used, but a majority of
purchasers use the classification as well; other parts of the DOT are less
widely used. Most purchasers (88 percent) report that discontinuing the
DOT would disrupt their work, and about a third (36 percent) report that
the disruption would be serious.
Site visits to a number of federal agencies revealed heavy reliance on the
DOT, as did responses from the special state agency user sample. The
Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training of the Department of Labor, for
example, uses the DOT'S measure of training time requirements for
occupations (specific vocational preparation) as a standard against which
to certify apprenticeship programs for skilled trades; the bureau also uses
the DOT classification for record-keeping purposes. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the Department of Labor relies on the DOT as a framework for
collecting, organizing, and reporting various types of labor market
information. The Bureau of Disability Insurance of the Social Security
Administration makes extensive use of the DOT, especially the worker trait
and worker function data, for the purpose of disability determinations and
OCR for page 7
Introduction and Summary
7
judgments as to what other jobs a disabled person might be able to
perform. The Veterans Administration makes similar use of the DOT
materials as an aid in rehabilitation and vocational counseling, as do
vocational rehabilitation programs in a number of states. Finally,
occupational information from the DOT iS used by vocational educators in
a number of federal and state agencies for the purpose of program
planning, curriculum development, and counseling.
The DOT has increasingly gained the attention of social researchers.
More than 150 research articles have been published since 1965 that either
use data from the DOT or provide evaluations of the quality of the DOT; an
annotated bibliography of these publications appears in Appendix C. The
DpT code is frequently used to describe the socioeconomic distribution of
subject samples (in psychological studies) and to match experimental
groups with control groups with respect to occupational category and skill
level. The worker traits and worker functions have been used in many
capacities, most notably in describing the distribution of job characteristics
across various sectors of the labor market and in examining shifts in labor
force composition. Economists often turn to the worker trait and worker
function scales when studying the determinants of wage structure, and
psychologists use this information in studying the relationship between
occupational characteristics and psychological functioning as well as
effects on performance. In addition, the DOT has been a valuable resource
in the more applied areas of vocational psychology and counseling.
Finally, a number of new scales, inventories, and classification systems
have incorporated DOT data and scales.
The DOT has served as a model or provided basic data for a number of
other important occupational classifications, most notably the new
Standard Occupational Classification (U.S. Department of Commerce,
1977), developed by the Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards
to promote the standardization of federal occupational statistics, and the
International Standard Classification of Occupations (International Labour
Office, 1958, 1968~.
Although the DOT and its associated materials have been widely used by
many individuals and organizations outside the Employment Service,
other products of the occupational analysis program have not had a
similarly wide impact; as far as we can ascertain, their use is restricted
almost entirely to the Employment Service.
THE OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS PROGRAM
Chapter 5 describes the organization of the occupational analysis program
of the U.S. Employment Service. The DOT iS produced by the Division of
OCR for page 8
8
WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS
Occupational Analysis in Washington, D.C., working in conjunction with
11 field centers located around the country. Job analysts working in the
field centers collect the bulk of the data on which the DOT iS based by
visiting business establishments, observing workers in jobs, and recording
and scaling the information observed. Currently, there are 129 positions in
the field centers and 15 in the national office; of those 15, only 10.5 are in
the Occupational Analysis Branch (the others are in the Job Search
Branch).
The national office is charged with directing the technical aspects of the
work of the 11 field centers, including planning new editions of the DOT
and other publications, designing data collection procedures and research
efforts, and coordinating the activities of the field centers. The field centers
are, however, administratively responsible to the employment agencies of
the states in which they are located and are subject to state regulations.
This arrangement creates substantial confusion and tension regarding lines
of authority. In addition, the national office has had administrative
difficulties for several years, experiencing a rapid turnover of leadership
and a severe reduction of stab. As a result the national office has not
provided effective leadership to the field centers leadership that is crucial
to the success of an extremely complex data collection task.
About 80 percent of field center staff time is devoted to work related to
the production of the DOT. The remainder is spent on the preparation of
career guides and brochures; providing training and technical assistance to
government agencies and other organizations on the products, methods,
and techniques of occupational analysis; and carrying out special projects
at the request of host state Employment Service agencies.
PRODUCTION OF THE FOURTH EDITION DOT
Chapter 6 describes the procedures used to produce the fourth edition
DOT. The information included in the DOT iS based on on-site observation
of jobs as they are performed in diverse business establishments and, for
jobs that are difficult to observe, on information obtained from professional
and trade associations. More than 75,000 on-site job analyses were
conducted in preparation for the fourth edition DOT.
The sampling of jobs for observation was a complicated and somewhat
indirect process: First, the national office assigned to each field center
responsibility for coverage of particular industries; these industries were
sometimes very broadly specified (e.g., retail trade) and sometimes very
narrowly specified (e.g., button manufacturing). Second, establishments
within each industry were chosen for analysis, with some effort being made
to choose "typical" establishments; the final selection, however, was
OCR for page 9
Introduction and Summary
9
dependent on the willingness of establishments to cooperate. Third, some
or all jobs within an establishment were chosen for observation in
negotiation with the management of the establishment.
In conducting job analyses within an establishment the analyst prepared
a description of major work processes, a table of organization, and a
staffing schedule showing the distribution of jobs within the establishment.
Using these materials, analysts selected individual jobs for analysis; jobs
that were similar to an occupation described in the third edition DOT were
less likely to be analyzed. The selected jobs were observed, and/or
incumbents or supervisors were interviewed. For each analyzed job the
analyst prepared a job analysis schedule, recording the tasks entailed in the
job, the machines, tools, or work aids used, the working conditions, and a
variety of other information. On this basis a description of the job was
prepared, and the job was rated with respect to 46 characteristics (worker
functions and worker traits). These procedures were modified somewhat as
the fourth edition deadline approached to speed completion of the data
collection phase.
Job analysis schedules produced from 1965 to 1976, intended for use in
compiling the fourth edition, were filed in the North Carolina field center
according to third edition codes. The actual writing of occupational
definitions for the fourth edition did not begin until 1976, the year before
the scheduled publication of the fourth edition. Definitions were prepared
mainly on the basis of the material included in the job analysis schedules.
Both the coverage of occupations and the quality of the descriptions
proved to be very uneven. Some third edition occupations had no new
documentation, while others had an excess the record is 652 job analysis
schedules for Materials Handler. Some schedules contained only the
notation "same as third edition," and for some occupations no job analysis
schedule was available but only a letter from a professional or trade
association. Furthermore, procedures for deciding how to combine
individual job descriptions into composite occupational definitions were
very unclear.
ASSESSMENT OF THE OCCUPATIONAL INFORMATION IN THE DOT
Chapter 7 provides an evaluation of the quality of the DOT as a source of
occupational information, with particular attention to the implications of
the procedures described in chapter 6. Available data make it difficult to
evaluate the representativeness of the coverage of jobs in the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles. There are, however, indirect indications that the
coverage has been disproportionately concentrated in the manufacturing
OCR for page 10
lo
WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS
industries and that certain other industries, such as trade and services, are
substantially underrepresented.
A second observation about the source data used to derive the
occupational descriptions in the DOT has to do with the number of job
analysis schedules underlying each description. About 16 percent of the
occupational descriptions included in the fourth edition DOT were
prepared without the benefit of a single job analysis schedule, 29 percent
were based on information from one job analysis schedule, and 19 percent
were based on information from two schedules; thus nearly two thirds of
the occupations described in the fourth edition DOT were based on the
observation of fewer than three jobs. Although there may indeed be a
number of occupations for which multiple on-site observations would be
redundant and wasteful, in the absence of information regarding the
heterogeneity or homogeneity of job content within occupations, the extent
to which the occupational descriptions rest on such limited observations
raises some question about their adequacy.
The conjunction of these two attributes of the data collection proce-
dures the nonrepresentative distribution of establishments visited and the
fact that most of the occupational descriptions are based on two or fewer
job analyses may well be related to a third feature: the very uneven
distribution of numbers of occupations identified within the major
occupation categories. In relation to their share of the labor force, the
number of specific occupations identified under the processing, machine
trades, and benchwork categories is substantially greater, and the number
in the clerical and sales and service categories is substantially smaller than
would be expected (Table 7-3~. There is, again, no reason to expect these
two distributions to be identical. Nevertheless, if there is a tendency for
each job analysis to produce an occupational description (as the number of
job analyses per occupation suggests), the fact that fewer job analyses were
performed for clerical workers, for example, may certainly be expected to
have an effect on the number of specific clerical occupations identified.
Finally, with regard to the quality of source data, three fourths of the
job analysis schedules used in compiling the fourth edition DOT do not
meet the standards specified for a complete job analysis; the propensity to
depart from standards increased during the period just prior to completion
of the fourth edition DOT. At that time there was also a shift away from
the preparation of new job analysis schedules toward the verification of
existing schedules.
The remainder of chapter 7 is devoted to an evaluation of the worker
function and worker trait ratings made in the course of job analyses and
included in the collation of data available for each DOT occupation. These
variables purport to measure the complexity of occupations, the training
OCR for page 11
Introduction and Summary
11
time required to prepare for them, the aptitudes, temperaments, and
interests necessary for adequate job performance, the physical demands of
occupations, and the working conditions under which they typically are
performed. As a comprehensive source of occupational information these
variables pose several difficulties. First, many are of dubious validity.
Developed in the 1950s by piecing together available materials, these
variables may not capture well important variability in the job content of
today's economy. Second, the measurement of these variables is, on the
whole, not highly reliable. A staff study of ratings by job analysts (reported
in detail in Appendix E) found the reliability of ratings to be moderate on
the average and very poor with respect to certain variables. Third, the 46
occupational characteristics appear to be highly redundant. A factor
analysis of these variables conducted by the staff revealed that six factors
account for 95 percent of the common variance factors measuring
substantive complexity, motor skills, physical demands, management
activity, interpersonal skills, and undesirable working conditions.
On the basis of this analysis the committee has concluded that the
worker traits and worker functions require thorough review, first at the
conceptual level to determine what kind of occupational information is
needed by the Employment Service and by other users and second at the
technical level to determine how such information can best be generated.
One suspicion regarding these data can be discounted. Charges had been
made that the worker function variables in the third edition DOT
underrated occupations filled mainly by women. A comparison of scores
on these variables for the third and fourth editions suggests that while the
charges were substantially correct regarding the third edition, the fourth
edition scores are apparently free of bias.
Despite deficiencies in the worker function and worker trait data for the
fourth edition DOT, they remain the single most comprehensive set of
occupational information available anywhere.
THE CLASSIFICATION OF OCCUPATIONS FOR JOB-WORKER MATCHING
Chapter 8 evaluates the classification structure of the DOT from the
standpoint of its usefulness in matching job applicants with job openings
and considers how it might be improved. If each job applicant knew
precisely which occupations he or she was qualified for and willing to work
at, no classification would be needed other than a list of job titles falling
within each occupational category. However, this is not the case for most
job applicants. Typically, a particular worker can do many jobs, and many
workers do, in fact, hold many different kinds of jobs in the course of their
work lives. Therefore for the Employment Service to serve job seekers best
OCR for page 12
12
WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS
a mechanism should be available for matching each job applicant not only
with jobs similar to those at which he or she has already worked or is
specifically trained but with all jobs that the applicant could perform
adequately. To do this requires that sets of "interchangeable" jobs be
identified and that they be brought to the attention of the job seeker and of
Employment Service placement staff.
Currently, most job placements by the Employment Service (about 75
percent in one center visited) are made via a self-search procedure in
which job applicants peruse a list of job openings organized by DOT code.
As a result "interchangeable" occupations tend to become limited to those
with relatively similar codes as catalogued in successively finer detail by
the first, second, third, etc. digits of the classification structure. However, a
knowledgeable examination of the DOT makes it obvious that many
occupations listed in different major (first digit) groups are interchange-
able. Although the worker trait arrangement developed for the third
edition DOT had as its rationale the illumination of cross-category linkages,
it is clear from our review of Employment Service operations that it did
not serve the purpose effectively; indeed, the worker trait arrangement was
seldom used.
The committee has concluded that such linkages must be developed as
part of the research activity of the occupational analysis program and
incorporated into the placement operation on a systematic basis so that the
information is available to an applicant using the microfiche listings in the
job bank as well as to placement staff. To cite two simple examples, one
cannot expect an applicant looking for a job as a ticket taker to know that
openings are listed under 344.667-010 (Ticket Taker, Amusement and
Recreation) and under 911.667-010 (Ticket Taker, Ferryboat) or one with
experience as a radio dispatcher to know that both 379.362-010 (Dispatch-
er, Radio) and 919.162-010 (Dispatcher, Traffic or System) may include
possible job openings.
There are, as noted, obvious cross-category linkages that are not
revealed by the classification structure in the fourth edition DOT. Beyond
these, however, there are undoubtedly many occupations whose similarity
is less immediately obvious. The trained occupational analysts in the field
centers and the national office are probably aware of many such linkages,2
but no mechanism exists for incorporating such knowledge into the
system, nor is any effort specifically directed at uncovering this inter-
changeability. The committee recommends that procedures for communi-
cating information on cross-occupational linkages be established and that
fin fact, the New York field center has devised a set of such linkages for local use, although
we were not able to ascertain the extent to which it was in operation.
OCR for page 13
Introduction and Summary
13
formal studies in this area be instituted. Such studies should exploit recent
developments in the methodology of occupational analysis, such as task
analysis and other forms of structured job analysis, and in the theory of
vocational choice. These developments are reviewed in chapter 8;
particular attention is devoted to two leading vocational theories that have
developed classification schemes for matching workers and jobs: the
Minnesota theory of work adjustment and Holland's theory of careers.
In addition, the committee explored an alternative approach, the use of
rates of naturally occurring mobility, to define clusters of interchangeable
jobs. Although the fact that many workers actually do move from one
occupation to another is not a necessary condition for assuming that those
who can do one job can also do the other, it is a sufficient condition. The
committee believes that an optimal approach to the identification of
clusters of interchangeable occupations would be to combine analysis of
the similarity of job content, especially with respect to skill requirements,
with analysis of naturally occurring patterns of occupational mobility.
The committee recommends that consideration be given to the
development of means of listing job openings that will group interchange-
able occupations, whether defined by skill transferability or empirically on
the basis of actually occurring mobility. This need not necessitate
modifying the classification structure; alternatively, flexible listing formats
could be explored, including multiple listings of jobs in the manner of
cross-classifications in library card catalogues.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 9 presents the conclusions and recommendations of the commit-
tee. On the basis of its analysis the committee concludes that there is a
strong and continuing need both within and outside the U.S. Employment
Service for the kind of information provided by the DOT but that
substantial improvements in the procedures and products of the occupa-
tional analysis program are required in order to meet the national need for
occupational information.
To effect this improvement, we make 3 general recommendations and 19
specific recommendations. The general recommendations are the follow-
~ng:
1. The occupational analysis program should concentrate its efforts on
the fundamental activity of job analysis and on research and
development strategies for improving procedures, monitoring
changes in job content, and identifying new occupations- that are
associated with the production and continuous updating of the
OCR for page 14
14
WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS
Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The program should discontinue the
publication of career guides.
2. A permanent, professional research unit of high quality should be
established to conduct technical studies designed to improve the
quality of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles as well as basic
research designed to improve understanding of the organization of
work in the United States.
3. An outside advisory committee to the occupational analysis program
should be established. Its members should be appointed by the
assistant secretary of labor for employment and training.
The specific recommendations are grouped into five general areas:
Data Collection Procedures
4. On-site observation of job performance by trained occupational
analysts, including interviews with workers and supervisors, should
continue as a major mode of data collection; experimentation with
other data collection procedures, however, should also be undertaken.
5. Staffing schedules for establishments in which job analyses are
performed should continue to be collected and should be used for
research purposes. The recently discontinued tabulation by sex of the
number of workers in each occupation should be reinstated.
6. The selection of establishments and work activities for which job
analyses are performed should be made according to a general
sampling plan designed for the particular requirements of occupation-
al analysis.
7. Procedures should be designed to monitor changes in the job content
of the economy. Both new occupations and changes in existing
occupations should be identified.
8. The Dictionary of Occupational Titles should be expanded to include
definitions of all occupations in the economy, whether or not they are
serviced by the Employment Service.
OCR for page 15
Introduction and Summary
Measurement of Occupational Characteristics
15
9. The worker trait and worker function scales should be reviewed and,
where it is appropriate, replaced with carefully developed multiple-
item scales that measure conceptually central aspects of occupational
content.
10. A research activity of first priority should be review of the training
time (GED and svP), physical demand, and working condition scales.
'Classification Issues
11. A major activity of the occupational analysis program should be
investigation of cross-occupational linkages that indicate possible
transferability of skills or experience.
12. The development of an automated procedure for matching job
applicants with job openings should continue, but the current keyword
system should not be accepted as optimal.
13. The classification system developed for the next edition of the DOT
should be compatible with the standard system implemented by the
Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards or its successor
coordinating federal agency. That is, explicit procedures should be
developed to enable the translation of occupational codes so that
information can be organized and reported using a standardized
classification.
Other Needed Research
14. Research priority should be given to developing criteria for defining
"occupations" the aggregation problem.
15. Basic research should be undertaken on the operation of labor markets
to improve understanding of the processes by which workers acquire
jobs.
Organizational and Administrative Issues
16. The leadership of the national office in the occupational analysis
program should be strengthened, greater attention should be given to
OCR for page 16
16
WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS
coordination of field center activities, and the lines of federal authority
should be clearly established.
17. The collection and dissemination of occupational information by the
occupational analysis program should be a continuous process;
activity should not fluctuate with the timing of new editions of the
DOT.
18. Procedures followed in collecting data and developing the DOT should
be carefully documented and publicly described.
19. The data produced for the DOT should be made publicly available.
20. A tabulation program should be instituted immediately to aggregate
monthly data from Employment Service operations to the revised
Standard Occupational Classification unit groups used in the 1980
Census of Population and subsequent Current Population Surveys.
21. A systematic program should be instituted to communicate additions
and revisions of occupational definitions and their classification
promptly to all operating staff in the Employment Service as well as to
other interested persons.
22. The next edition of the DOT should not be issued until substantial
improvements in the occupational analysis program have been made,
following the recommendations made here.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
The report contains eight appendixes that provide additional technical
data or extended analysis of particular topics. Appendix A presents the
questionnaire used in the probability survey of DOT purchasers (discussed
in chapter 4) with response frequencies. Appendix B presents detailed
reports of uses of the DOT by three major federal users, based on site visits
to each of the agencies: the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training of the
Department of Labor, the Bureau of Disability Insurance of the Social
Security Administration, and the Veterans Administration. Appendix C is
an annotated bibliography of research uses of the DOT, with approximately
150 entries. Appendix D provides a bibliography of publications of the
occupational analysis program, including publications of both the national
office and the field centers. Appendix E is a study of the reliability of
measurement of DOT worker functions and worker traits. Appendix F
OCR for page 17
Introduction and Summary
provides scores for selected worker function and worker trait variables for
each of the categories of the 1970 Census detailed occupational clas-
sification; these are intended to be an aid to researchers. The two
remaining appendixes serve as background to chapter 8: Appendix G
assesses the Employment Service's keyword system, an automated system
for matching job applicants with job openings, and appendix H discusses
the use of occupational mobility data to evaluate and construct occupa-
tional classifications.
17
Representative terms from entire chapter:
occupational titles
