Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$108.00



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 46


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 45
USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. 45 EMPLOYMENT SERVICE original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. 4 Use of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles Outside the U.S. Employment Service In accordance with its charge, the committee undertook an assessment of the current and projected need for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (and other program products) outside the U.S. Employment Service. As described in chapter 3, the DOT was originally designed for use as a job-matching tool for the U.S. Employment Service. Since 1939, when the first edition was published, the DOT has gained widespread acceptance and has been widely used by agencies and organizations outside the Employment Service. Since there has been no previous description of these users, one of the charges to the committee was to document the uses made of the DOT and assess the prevalence of these uses. We have approached this objective in several ways: (1) through a probability survey of persons who had recently purchased the DOT, (2) by interviews and site visits at organizations and agencies identified as institutional users of products of the Division of Occupational Analysis (OA), these interviews being supplemented by a survey of persons identified as users of the DOT at the state level, and (3) through inquiries of researchers who had used the DOT in their work or had evaluated the DOT itself, to develop an annotated bibliography of research uses of the DOT. Patricia A.Roos had primary responsibility for the preparation of this chapter.

OCR for page 45
USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. 46 EMPLOYMENT SERVICE original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. COLLECTING DATA ON DOT USES DESCRIPTION OF THE UNIVERSE Because the Dictionary of Occupational Titles is the most heavily used publication of the Division of Occupational Analysis, we concentrated our attention on the kinds and extent of use made of the DOT. The distribution and use of the career publications and other OA products are discussed at the end of the chapter. Figure 4-1 depicts the distribution of the fourth edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles since its publication in December 1977. These numbers were derived from consultation with the staff of the Government Printing Office, the Department of Labor, and the individual agencies to which the DOT was distributed. The federal agencies in the top half of Figure 4-1 are those that “rode the requisition” for the DOT, that is, placed bulk orders supplementary to the basic requisition by the Department of Labor. In addition to these agencies other individuals, groups, and organizations ordered their copies directly from the Government Printing Office (GPO). Approximately 201,000 copies of the DOT have been printed for sale, and by September 30, 1979, 115,115 had been sold. A large portion of these were sold through bulk orders, either to GPO distribution centers or to college textbook centers. It is instructive to note that in the first 14-month period following the publication of the third edition DOT, 40,654 copies were sold; the comparable figure for the fourth edition was 100,198 copies. The total number of third edition copies sold from its 1965 publication date through the end of 1977 (when it went out of print) was 148,145. Clearly, interest in the information provided by the DOT has increased dramatically since publication of the third edition. SAMPLING DESIGN Given the complex distribution of the DOT, the development of an adequate sample of DOT users outside the Employment Service represented something of a challenge. Consideration of Figure 4-1 conveys the nature of the difficulty. First, many copies were purchased in bulk by federal agencies and distributed to relevant staff, and no record was kept as to who received copies. To tap this part of the universe of users, we conducted site visits with agency personnel to determine what sort of institutional use was being made of the DOT. Second, the GPO sold the DOT in two ways: directly to individual parties through single-order purchases and indirectly through bulk orders from GPO distribution centers and college textbook

OCR for page 45
USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. 47 EMPLOYMENT SERVICE original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. distribution firms. For the direct sales to individuals a record was kept by GPO of the name and address of the purchasing party, the date of sale, and the number of copies sold. No such records were kept by the resale agencies (GPO distribution centers, which are effectively retail bookstores, and college textbook distribution firms). To tap this part of the DOT user population, we surveyed a probability sample of the single-order purchasers of the DOT; in addition, we solicited information from casual samples of two types of known DOT users: those identified by staff of the State Occupational Information Coordinating Committee and those identified by researchers who had published material using the DOT. In order to interpret responses from a probability sample of single-order purchasers of the DOT as being representative of the universe of DOT users outside federal agencies, it is necessary to make two assumptions: first, that purchasers of the DOT from resale agencies do not differ in the aggregate from those who purchased the DOT directly from the GPO; and second, that purchasers do not differ in the aggregate from nonpurchasers who use the DOT. The first assumption creates no difficulty; there is no reason to believe that the manner of purchase seriously affects the nature of use. The second assumption is somewhat more troubling. In many cases the purchasing party was an organization or division within an organization. In such a case many people may use a single copy of the DOT. As we note below, our sampling strategy was designed to elicit a response from the primary user of the DOT within an organization, but it was not tightly controlled and is hence subject to an unknown amount of error. Despite these problems we regard our coverage of various types of users of the DOT as fully adequate for our purpose, which was to ascertain the major uses made of the document. Probability Survey of DOT Purchasers To create a sampling frame for the survey of DOT purchasers, a list of names and addresses of persons who bought the DOT and other occupational analysis products still in print during the year period July 1977 through June 1978 was obtained from GPO. The earlier date was constrained by the lack of suitable records prior to July 1977, and the ending date of June 1978 was chosen so as to allow potential respondents a chance to become familiar with the item they purchased before being queried. With this sampling frame we were guaranteed both an address and an interest in occupational analysis products, as evidenced by the fact that the individual or organization had purchased an OA publication. Given the December 1977 publication date of the fourth edition DOT, the

OCR for page 45
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.EMPLOYMENT SERVICE USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. FIGURE 4-1 Distribution of the fourth edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles. 48

OCR for page 45
USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. 49 EMPLOYMENT SERVICE original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. use of this sampling base indicates that we sampled from among those persons who purchased this edition during its first 6 months of availability. The potential respondent universe included 11,476 names. Names and addresses were selected from this list by random sampling with probability of selection proportionate to the number of copies purchased. A relatively small sample of purchasers (N=472) was drawn on the grounds that a high return rate from a small sample would produce more accurate results than a low return rate from a large sample and that our resources were not sufficient to ensure a high return rate unless we started with a relatively small sample. Our strategy proved successful in that we ultimately achieved a 74 percent completion rate, which is very high for mail surveys. The selection procedure entailed sending one questionnaire (shown in Appendix A) to each name and address selected regardless of how many copies were purchased. The questionnaire was sent to the listed address with instructions in the cover letter to forward the questionnaire to an appropriate individual, i.e., an actual user of the DOT. This instruction was necessary because the name of the purchaser provided on the GPO list was not necessarily the person for whom the publication was ordered; we had no control over which individual actually received the questionnaire. Interviews, Case Studies, and a Survey of Institutional Users Because the GPO list was limited to single-order purchasers, we supplemented the survey results by eliciting information from large institutional users of the DOT outside the Employment Service. This task was approached in two ways. First, the staff conducted interviews at organizations that are large users of OA products (mainly federal agencies in the Washington, D.C., area). In addition, detailed case studies of DOT use were conducted at the federal agencies that ordered large numbers of copies of the fourth edition DOT (see Figure 4-1): the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training of the Employment and Training Administration, the Bureau of Disability Insurance of the Social Security Administration, and the Veterans Administration. (The Department of Navy never distributed its copies, so no case study was conducted there.) Interviews were generally conducted with the director and other members of the professional staff of the division in which DOT use was most prevalent (see Appendix B for detailed reports). Second, a copy of the purchaser questionnaire was sent to a list of 338 names generated by contacting the various state offices of the State Occupational Information Coordinating Committee (SOICC). The SOICC names were solicited to enlarge the number of responses from persons within various state organizations with particular knowledge of or interest in the use of the

OCR for page 45
USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. 50 EMPLOYMENT SERVICE original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. DOT in their state or whose work might be seriously affected if the DOT were to be discontinued. Whereas the GPO sample was a probability sample of purchasers, the SOICC list had the very different purpose of getting the questionnaire to institutional users who might not be well represented on the purchaser list. Survey of Researchers A final group of users of the DOT outside the Employment Service is academic and other researchers. In order to identify this population a query was sent to a group of researchers who had used the DOT in their published or unpublished work as well as to those researchers who have discussed or criticized the DOT; the target population was identified informally on the basis of staff and committee knowledge. In addition, the staff contacted purchasers of the DOT who appeared on the GPO list with the title Dr. or Professor or who were located in a college or university academic department. A letter to researchers requested reprints or citations of published and unpublished work in which the DOT was used as a research tool. This material was used in the compilation of an annotated bibliography of research uses of the DOT (see Appendix C). TIMETABLE OF SURVEY PROCEDURES Preliminary versions of the questionnaire were reviewed by members of the committee and by members of the Department of Labor Technical Steering Committee (representatives from the departments of Labor, Commerce, and Health, Education, and Welfare). The questionnaire was revised, both in the wording and sequencing of questions, and a pretest version was sent to 50 randomly drawn names from the GPO mailing list on December 11, 1978. On January 5, 1979, a follow-up questionnaire was sent to those of the original 50 names who had not responded to the previous inquiry. On January 9, 1979, a revised version of the questionnaire and a supporting statement were sent to the Department of Labor (DOL) so that DOL staff could initiate clearance procedures with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Clearance was granted from DOL on February 13 and from OMB on March 21. On the basis of the pretest results, minor revisions were made, and the final printed version of the questionnaire was sent to the sample of DOT purchasers and the SOICC group on April 13, 1979. Mail follow-ups to those who had not responded were sent out on May 8 and June 5. A final telephone follow- up of the DOT purchaser sample was conducted during the week of July 16–20; those respondents

OCR for page 45
USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. 51 EMPLOYMENT SERVICE original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. agreeing to fill out the questionnaire were sent another copy. As of August 15, 1979, 632 questionnaires had been returned, representing a 74-percent response rate for the DOT purchasers and an 84-percent response rate for the SOICC group.1 INSTITUTIONAL USES OF THE DOT: A SAMPLE OF PURCHASERS The purchaser survey was designed to answer four basic questions: (1) who uses the DOT and for what reasons, (2) what is the nature and frequency of DOT use, (3) how essential is its use, and (4) how adequate is it for the purposes for which it is used? This section provides the results of the survey of those DOT purchasers who reported that they had ever used the DOT (90 percent of all the responding DOT purchasers).2 Appendix A presents the response frequencies for each item in the questionnaire. A wide variety of organizations find the DOT helpful in their work. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 provide information on the type of employer for which the DOT purchasers work and the type of work they do. Among the most frequent types of employers are educational institutions (42 percent), government agencies (20 percent), private for-profit companies (13 percent), libraries (13 percent), and nonprofit organizations (10 percent). Purchasers did a variety of types of work, the most prevalent being career and vocational counseling (30 percent), library reference (18 percent), management (15 percent), and employment placement (8 percent). Table 4-3 provides an overall view of the type of work done by purchasers in various kinds of organizations. Users in educational institutions are employed primarily in career and vocational counseling and guidance. In the educational institutions surveyed, 57 percent of the DOT users do this type of work. Another 13 percent are engaged in 1Twenty-six percent of the DOT purchaser sample did not respond. A few of these nonresponses were due to the respondent's being too busy to fill out the questionnaire. A few other respondents reported that they did not use the DOT and thus could not respond to the survey. However, the vast majority (96 percent) of nonrespondents never responded to any of the three mailings and could not be contacted by phone. It is reasonable therefore to infer that many of these questionnaires never reached their target owing, no doubt, in large part to the lack of specificity in the GPO list of purchasers, which often did not list an individual's name. This problem was particularly difficult given the number of large institutional purchasers of the DOT included in the sample. 2Because of the lack of specificity of the sampling frame (the GPO list of names and addresses), a question was included on the survey to identify Employment Service employees. Since the primary interest in this section is in exploring DOT use by agencies or organizations other than the Employment Service, the eight respondents who reported that they worked for their state Employment Service were excluded from the analysis. See chapter 3 for details on Employment Service use of the DOT.

OCR for page 45
USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. 52 EMPLOYMENT SERVICE original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. vocational education. The DOT users in government agencies at the federal, state, and local levels, on the other hand, are engaged in a variety of different kinds of work, primarily rehabilitation counseling (mostly at the state level), employment placement and career counseling (mostly federal), and the projection of labor force trends (mostly county/local government). In contrast, users in private industry are employed quite differently: two thirds are in administration, including personnel or general management and compensation administration. The occupational identifications of DOT users are reflected in the professional associations to which the respon TABLE 4-1 Distribution of DOT Purchasers, by Type of Employer (N=309) Type of Employer Percentage Library 13 Educational institution 42 Government 20 Private for-profit business 14 Nonprofit business 10 Other types of employers 2 101 TOTAL TABLE 4-2 Distribution of DOT Purchasers, by Type of Work (N=307)a Type of Work Percentage Career or vocational counseling 30 Rehabilitation counseling 7 Vocational education 7 Employment placement 8 Management/compensation 15 Projections/occupational information dissemination 7 Librarianship 18 Teaching/research 5 Other work 4 101 TOTAL aTotal N of 309, with two no answers.

OCR for page 45
USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. 53 EMPLOYMENT SERVICE original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. dents belong; the most frequently mentioned associations include the American Personnel and Guidance Association, the American Vocational Association, the National Rehabilitation Association, and National Education Association. HOW THE DOT IS USED Given the nature of the sample (purchasers of the fourth edition DOT), it is not surprising that 88 percent of the respondents report that they have used the fourth edition. The bulk of respondents report that they make more frequent use of the fourth edition than of earlier editions. Of the fourth edition purchasers, 43 percent note that they use the fourth edition regularly, while another 45 percent report occasional use in the past year. At the time of the survey, some organizations were still making use of the first two volumes of the third edition: more than 46 percent of the sample report that they had used either the first or second volume of the third edition DOT in the past year (third edition Volumes 1 and 2 include the definitions of titles, the occupational classification, industry index, and the worker trait information). For those respondents dependent on worker trait information, a supplement of the third edition DOT (U.S. Department of Labor, 1966) is the only available source, since at the time of the survey the fourth edition worker trait data had not yet been published. Table 4-4 presents a description of the use of the component parts of the DOT by purchasers engaged in various types of work. The DOT job titles and definitions are by far the most heavily used parts of the DOT: 95 percent of those responding report that they use the dictionary function of the DOT. Moreover, use of the job titles and definitions is heavy regardless of the type of work performed. Another frequently utilized part of the DOT is the classification scheme itself. Three fifths of the respondents indicate that they use the DOT classification and codes for administrative and statistical reporting reasons. The only groups not reporting heavy use of the DOT codes and classification are librarians and those engaged in management or compensation administration. The worker function data (the complexity of the relationship of the occupation to data, people, and things) or their rearrangement into the worker trait groups is used by an identifiable minority of the respondents. Not surprisingly, the types of work for which these parts of the DOT are most useful are those concerned with the transferability of skills, that is, in matching an individual to employment on the basis of his or her previous jobs and/or assessed skill level. Counselors (especially those in rehabilitative counseling) and educators (in the career counseling field) are among those most likely to employ the worker function scales. The industry designation and the

OCR for page 45
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. TABLE 4-3 Percentage Distribution of DOT Purchasers Engaged in Various Types of Work, by Type of Employer Type of Employer Type of Work Library Educational Government Private For- Non-Profit Other Types of Total Institution Profit Business Business Employers Career or vocational 0 57 15 0 21 0 29 counseling Rehabilitation 0 2 15 7 17 38 7 EMPLOYMENT SERVICE counseling Vocational education 0 13 5 2 0 12 7 Employment 0 2 18 7 24 12 8 placement Personnel 0 2 7 48 9 0 9 management Labor force 0 0 15 0 10 0 4 projections Occupational 0 3 5 0 0 12 3 information development and dissemination Compensation 0 1 3 14 3 0 3 administration General 0 3 3 5 0 0 3 management/ administration Teaching 0 9 0 0 0 0 4 USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. Librarianship 100 6 5 5 7 0 18 Research 0 1 0 2 3 0 1 Other work 0 0 8 10 7 25 4 TOTAL 100 99 99 100 101 99 100 Na (39) (129) (60) (42) (29) (8) (307) 54 aTotal N of 309, with two no answers.

OCR for page 45
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.EMPLOYMENT SERVICE USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. 55

OCR for page 45
USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. 82 EMPLOYMENT SERVICE original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. To obtain a sample of occupations representative of the U.S. occupational structure, Tinsley and Weiss (1974) drew occupations from each of the first- digit DOT code groups in proportion to the number of workers in the United States employed in those groups. (The authors did not specify how they determined the distribution of workers in these groups.) The code was also used to determine job similarity in a study of the sources and benefits of workers' skills (Roomkin and Somers, 1974). Even social scientists far removed from occupational analysis and economics have found the DOT codes useful. For instance, clinical psychologists Brown and Pool (1974) matched brain-injured subjects with a control group on premorbid occupational level. However, they did not specifically define “occupational level.” JOB TITLES AND DEFINITIONS The job titles and definitions provide researchers with a standard system for identifying and describing occupations. This information has been incorporated into several vocational guidance tools (e.g., the Vocational Card Sort (Cooper, 1976), the Non-Sexist Vocational Card Sort (Dewey, 1974), and the Occupational Reinforcer Patterns (Borgen et al., 1972)). In addition, Remenyi and Fraser (1977) examined the effects of occupational information on students' occupational perceptions by adding DOT definitions to the titles, and Sterne (1974) used the titles in a study of the validity of the Kuder Occupational Interest Inventory. WORKER TRAITS AND WORKER FUNCTIONS The worker trait data and worker function scales have received by far more attention in the research community than any other part of the DOT. Data, People, and Things The worker function scales, which measure a job's complexity in relation to data, people, and things, have been used in many capacities. Sociologists and economists have attempted to describe the distribution of these job characteristics in the U.S. labor market. For instance, Dubnoff (1978) found that a job's complexity is inversely related to the percentage of employees who are female, and Lucas (1974) reported that complexity in relation to people is negatively correlated with percentage of employees who are black. Brown (1975) examined the distribution by race and sex of workers who hold discretionary jobs, defined as those jobs with a data or things rating of less than 5 or with a people rating of less than 6.

OCR for page 45
USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. 83 EMPLOYMENT SERVICE original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. In a study of the status of jobs held typically by men and by women, McLaughlin (1978) used a modified version of the worker function scales. Spenner (1977, 1980) included the worker functions among his variables in a series of studies on intergenerational occupational transmission. He found that complexity is a factor only in the father-son occupational relationship. The worker functions have been useful in applied research as well. Using the worker function scales and training time to generate five orders of job similarity, Fine (1957) proposed an approach to the transferability of skills that would be useful in vocational counseling and in designing training programs. Hemmens et al. (1978) compared the job tasks and skills of social policy planners, coded according to the worker functions, with training received in professional schools and found serious discrepancies. Modified versions of the DOT worker function scales were also incorporated into Dumas and Muthard's (1971) job analysis method for health-related professions. A number of studies adopted the concept of worker functions without the actual scales. Kohn and Schooler (1969) developed a measure of substantive complexity, closely modeled after the DOT measures, to study workers' values and orientations. In a later paper (Kohn and Schooler, 1973) on the relationship between occupational experience and psychological functioning, they used the DOT worker function scales as a source of external validation for their own index as well as for assessing the complexity of past jobs. Mortimer (1974, 1976), in her work on intergenerational occupational transmission patterns, used the DOT interest variables to determine the functional foci of work (that is, the complexity of a job's relationship to data, people, and things). Finally, Prediger (1976) used worker trait and worker function variables to create a two- dimensional map relating workers and jobs. Training Time The DOT's two training time scales, general educational development (GED) and specific vocational preparation (SVP), have proven to be important sources of information for the social scientist. In studying the educational and skill level structure of the U.S. labor market, both Kolstad (1977) and Dubnoff (1978) found that GED and SVP are negatively correlated with percentage of employees in each occupation who are female. Lucas's (1977) hedonic wage equations indicate that workers receive higher monetary as well as “psychic” wages for higher levels of GED and SVP. The SVP measure was used in a similar study of wage attainment by Stolzenberg (1975). Kalleberg and Hudis (1979) reported

OCR for page 45
USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. 84 EMPLOYMENT SERVICE original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. that for men in their late careers, SVP has a significant effect on wage increase in general, especially for those who did not change occupations or employers. Prompted by Miller's (1971b) comparison of workers' educational attainment and the required GED of their occupations, which implies that many members of the labor market are overtrained, Kalleberg and Sorenson (1973) and Coburn (1975) studied the effects of discrepancies between training and requirements on job attitudes and health. Finally, GED was found to be positively correlated with the employment stability of male parolees and probationers (G.Gottfredson and D.Lipstein, 1975). Other Worker Traits The other worker traits have appeared in the literature most often in descriptions of labor force composition and as variables in economists' wage equations. Using DOT temperament 3 (supervision) and 4 (autonomy), Dubnoff (1978) found that the relative growth of women's employment is likely to be greatest in occupations in which supervison was high and least in occupations requiring worker autonomy. An earlier study revealed that negative working conditions and heavy physical demands are in general less common in jobs held by women but are almost as frequent for jobs held by black women as for those held by white men (Lucas, 1974). Lucas (1977) later reported that workers receive higher wages in compensation for repetitive routine (temperaments) and obnoxious physical environments (working conditions and physical demands). Hartog (1977) presented empirical support for his multicapability theory of income distribution using the DOT aptitude scales matched with census income data. USE OF DOT CONCEPTS IN OTHER SCALES AND CLASSIFICATIONS DOT concepts have been incorporated into a number of scales, inventories, and classification systems. The Minnesota Job Requirements Questionnaire (MJRQ) assesses each of the nine DOT worker aptitude requirements by five items. Occupational reinforcer patterns, which describe the stimulus conditions available in the work environment for the satisfaction of worker needs, are based on the combined Minnesota Job Description Questionnaire ratings of supervisors and/or employees. Occupational reinforcer patterns for 148 occupations are presented alphabetically by

OCR for page 45
USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. 85 EMPLOYMENT SERVICE original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. title (Borgen et al., 1972; Rosen et al., 1972), Bemis et al. (1973, 1974) DOT developed a structure of 62 occupational ability patterns using the DOT aptitudes and the worker trait groups. Later, Dawis and Lofquist (1974, 1975) cross- classified the occupational ability patterns and the occupational reinforcer patterns, obtaining as a result psychologically homogeneous groups of occupations (taxons). They embedded the DOT's occupational groupings— worker traits and worker functions—in the scheme now known as the Minnesota Occupational Classification System (MOCS). The American College Testing Program Occupational Classification System (ACT-OCS) incorporates all occupations listed in the third edition DOT in a structure derived from analyses of the worker traits and worker functions (Prediger, 1976). Holland's six- category occupational classification, based on a theory of personality types, has often been subdivided on the basis of GED level (G.Gottfredson, 1977; G.Gottfredson et al., 1975; L. Gottfredson, 1978); Viernstein (1972) has developed two methods for translating DOT codes into Holland codes. In assessing the status of occupations, Caston (1978) replaced the Duncan socioeconomic index with the GED and SVP scales. The DOT has also been recommended as a tool in coding occupations and industries into the detailed 1970 census categories (Featherman et al., 1975; Temme, 1975) and the International Standard Classification of Occupations (Treiman, 1977). Vocational psychologists have turned to the DOT in developing other counseling aids. The Vocational Card Sort (Cooper, 1976), the Non-Sexist Vocational Card Sort (Dewey, 1974) and the SPART inventory (Ekpo-Ufot, 1976) are several examples. Time Share Corporation's (1976) computer-based Guidance Information System makes available information from the DOT to aid clients in choosing appropriate occupational categories. Finally, aspects of the DOT have been incorporated into a number of occupational classifications and occupational dictionaries developed elsewhere. We have already discussed the influence of the DOT on the Standard Occupational Classification (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1977). In addition, the DOT served as a model for the International Standard Classification of Occupations (International Labour Office, 1958, 1968). Two foreign occupational dictionaries are heavily influenced by the DOT: the Japanese dictionary of occupational titles is an almost verbatim translation of the second edition DOT, and the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations 1971 (Canadian Minister of Manpower and Immigration, 1971) acknowledges the use of certain features of the American DOT. In fact, the Canadian Dictionary includes for each occupation a “qualifications profile” consisting of ratings of GED, SVP, aptitudes, interests, temperaments, and physical demands.

OCR for page 45
USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. 86 EMPLOYMENT SERVICE original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. EVALUATION OF DOT DATA Although the DOT has proven to be a valuable source of information for social science research, there are serious drawbacks that prevent even more widespread use. The incompatibility of the DOT classification with other classification systems and their accompanying social statistics seriously limits its use, since researchers are often interested in relating the worker trait and worker function scales to data collected on general population samples. For instance, until recently it has been difficult to relate the vast wealth of census data to the DOT scales. A number of projects have attempted to cross-code the two systems. The Spenner-Temme file (Spenner et al., 1980) makes available weighted estimates of 17 occupational characteristics for the 595 1970 Census occupation industry categories (see also Temme (1975)). These include 10 third edition DOT characteristics: DATA, PEOPLE, and THINGS; GED; SVP; and temperaments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8.6 Spenner is currently expanding the file to include 20 additional DOT characteristics. The methods used in generating these measures as well as some evidence on their reliability and validity are presented by Spenner (1980). Miller (1971a) describes work coding the April 1971 Current Population Survey with 1970 Census codes and third edition DOT codes (the actual coding was done by occupational analysis field center personnel) and discusses the advantages of being able to move from one system to another. Similarly, Broom et al. (no date, 1977) had the 1971 Australian Census Classification of Occupations (ACCO) coded with DOT DATA, PEOPLE, and THINGS scores in order to study new aspects of occupational mobility patterns. The DOT data would be of much greater use in social science research if steps were taken to make the DOT classification system compatible with other widely used occupational classifications. The newly developed Standard Occupational Classification (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1977) goes some way toward meeting this objective. A second major drawback to the use of DOT data in research is the lack of reliability estimates for the worker trait and worker function scales. The development of these scales has been so poorly documented that researchers cannot be altogether confident about the validity of their results. Although a number of articles trace the history of the current DOT data (Fine, 1955, 1968b; Fine and Heinz, 1957, 1958; Scoville, 1965; Studdiford, 1951, 1953), they have been largely descriptive. Very little 6In Appendix F we offer similar estimates for eight fourth edition DOT occupational characteristics: DATA, PEOPLE, and THINGS; GED; SVP; STRENGTH; PHYSDEM (physical demands); and ENVIRON (environmental conditions). See the introduction to the appendix for additional details.

OCR for page 45
USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. 87 EMPLOYMENT SERVICE original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. empirical evidence supporting the scales' reliablity and validity is available. Social scientists have been quick to point out this deficiency (Desmond and Weiss, 1973; Pratzner and Stump, 1977; Scoville, 1966; Walther, 1960; Witt and Naherny, 1975), which has undoubtedly discouraged more extensive use of these scales. Several studies have attempted to remedy this deficiency. Sainty's (1974) validation of the third edition worker trait groups was performed by comparing its factor structure with the factor structure of a random sample of 800 of the 4,000 jobs used as the basis for the DOT. Fine (1957) found that four experienced occupational analysts were able to determine Minnesota Occupational Rating Scale values fairly reliably for 37 jobs from Functional Occupational Classification Project data (worker trait and work performed dimensions), and Broom et al. (1977) attempted to validate the worker function scales in terms of the worker traits required by different jobs in the DOT. These studies, however, mark only the beginning of an effort needed to assess the reliability and validity of DOT data and scales. Chapter 7 describes these issues in greater detail and presents the committee's own reliability studies. USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF OTHER OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS PRODUCTS In addition to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles the Occupational Analysis Branch of the Division of Occupational Analysis publishes or distributes a series of career brochures and pamphlets. Some of these publications are initiated by the national office, while others are initiated locally, either by field center staff or by local Employment Service personnel in consultation with field center staff. The Job Search Branch of the Division of Occupational Analysis is also responsible for distributing brochures, news releases, and other labor market information directly to occupational information consumers (primarily local Employment Service offices). This section provides a brief description of how these publications are distributed and who uses them. The committee approached the task of determining the use of occupational analysis products other than the DOT in three ways: 1. The Government Printing Office (GPO) was asked to provide a list of names and addresses of those persons who had purchased at least one copy of a publication of the Division of Occupational Analysis during the period July 1977 through June 1978. Estimates were then derived of the total number of requests and total number of copies purchased during this

OCR for page 45
USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. 88 EMPLOYMENT SERVICE original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. period. In addition, estimates of the total number of publications printed were obtained from Department of Labor representatives. 2. As part of our probability survey of DOT purchasers and survey of state- level users, we asked respondents to indicate the frequency with which they use various other publications of the occupational analysis program. 3. During interviews at local Employment Service offices, ES personnel were asked about their knowledge and frequency of use of various OA publications. OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS BRANCH The Occupational Analysis Branch of the Division of Occupational Analysis publishes a series of career-related brochures and pamphlets. These products range from in-house publications, such as the Handbook for Analyzing Jobs, to career brochures, such as Career Opportunities in the Telephone and Telegraph Industries, Occupations in Library Science, and Career Opportunities in the Trucking Industry. (For a listing of OA publications, see Appendix D.) Although most of the national career publications still in print are available for sale through the Government Printing Office, the bulk of these brochures are distributed through local Employment Service offices, including model job information sites. This material is also distributed on a more informal basis by occupational analysts at the national office to various other government agencies and other organizations, including those that helped to produce the brochures. Occupational analysts, for example, worked with representatives from the Division of Associated Health Professions (Bureau of Health Resources Administration) and the National Health Council in developing the Health Careers Guidebook and with the Environmental Protection Agency in the development of the Environmental Protection Careers Guidebook; copies of the brochures were sent to these agencies. The Employment and Training Administration's office of information also distributes single copies of OA brochures to those who request them. On the basis of the results from the DOT purchaser sample and the survey of state-level users it appears that the biggest consumers of these publications (other than Employment Service personnel) are career and vocational counselors, career educators, rehabilitation counselors, and employment placement personnel. For example, the Job Corps national office recently began distributing copies of the Career Opportunities and Career Guidebook Series to all Job Corps centers, regional offices, and agencies. The state-initiated brochures also receive their primary distribution through local Employment Service offices. In California, for example,

OCR for page 45
USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. 89 EMPLOYMENT SERVICE original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. publications relevant to Employment Service activities are automatically distributed to a mailing list of local offices in the federal region in which the field center is located. The field center distributes these publications free to anyone who requests a small number, most notably school vocational counselors or other personnel involved with career guidance. JOB SEARCH BRANCH The Job Search Branch within the Division of Occupational Analysis distributes labor market information in a variety of forms. Working with the Employment Service's job bank master file, personnel of the Job Search Branch produce and distribute four major job search products (see chapter 5). The Job Search Branch sends out 700 copies of the Job Bank Openings Summary in microfiche form each month. The consumers of this information include primarily Employment Service offices as well as CETA prime sponsors, state and federal agencies (e.g., the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation and the Veteran Administration), and CETA contractors. More than 400 copies of Job Bank Frequently Listed Openings (JOB-FLO), in either microfiche or hard copy and in either national or local format, are distributed monthly to the same kinds of organizations receiving Job Bank Openings. About 165,000 copies of Occupations in Demand are distributed monthly, primarily to Employment Service local offices but also to secondary and college-level guidance counselors and other job placement personnel. Finally, 70 sets of the Labor Market Information Analytical Table Series (LMI-ATS) are sent monthly to the research and analysis chiefs of the state LMI offices. Table 4-11 presents the results of the surveys of the DOT purchaser and SOICC samples regarding use of other occupational analysis materials as well as information collected from the Department of Labor (on the total number of copies printed) and from the Government Printing Office (on the number of copies sold between July 1977 and June 1978). Since the primary distribution point for these publications is local Employment Service offices (see chapter 3 for details on Employment Service use of these products), it is not surprising that few of the large number of printed copies were purchased through GPO during the period reviewed. Of those publications still in print, only Job Descriptions and Organizational Analysis for Hospitals, published in 1971, is still in relatively high demand through GPO. Career Opportunities in the Telephone and Telegraph Industries, published recently, is also requested more often than the other publications. Health Careers Guidebook, the most recent update of which was published in 1979, is also a popular item, as indicated by the large number of copies printed for distribution. One reason for the low sales of

OCR for page 45
USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. 90 EMPLOYMENT SERVICE original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. TABLE 4-11 Percentage Using Other Occupational Analysis (OA) Productsa GPO Salesc OA Publication DOT Purchasers Total SOICC Group Number Printedb Career 8 14 20,000 357 Opportunities in the Telephone and Telegraph Industries (1977) Career 12 18 20,000 204 Opportunities in the Trucking Industry (1978) Handbook for 15 25 7,500 — Analyzing Jobs (1972) Health Careers 24 25 72,000— — Guidebook (1973) Job Descriptions 11 21 15,000 560 and Organizational Analysis for Hospitals (1971) Job Guide for 13 19 40,000 — Young Workers (1970) Occupations in 9 15 25,000 138 Electronic Computing Systems (1972) Occupations in 9 10 20,000 75 Library Science (1973) Task Analysis 7 17 76 — Inventories (Series 1) (1973) Job Bank Openings 17 29 — — Summary (monthly) Frequently Listed 19 31 — — Openings (monthly) Occupations in 28 37 — — Demand (monthly) Labor Market 16 28 — — Information Analytical Table Series (monthly) N (309) (186) aUsers of other occupational analysis products are defined as those reporting frequent or occasional use of publication in the past year. Those not using the specified publication include those who never use it, those who are not familiar with-it, and those not responding to the question. bThe total number printed are estimates made in consultation with Department of Labor representatives. Publications with no estimate are monthlies (see text for distribution figure) or the number is unknown. cGPO sales are defined as number of copies of publication sold through the Government Printing Office during the year period July 1977 through June 1978. Publications with no estimates are out of print or unavailable through GPO.

OCR for page 45
USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. 91 EMPLOYMENT SERVICE original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. some publications is that they are nearing the end of their run and are due to be revised. The data in the first two columns of Table 4-11 indicate that small but identifiable subsets of the DOT purchasers and state-level users recognize and use these other occupational analysis products. The Job Search Branch monthlies are used more frequently than other publications, but Occupations in Demand is the only publication recognized and used by at least one third of the group of state-level users. SUMMARY Since its first publication as a job placement tool for the U.S. Employment Service, the Dictionary of Occupational Titles has been used for a wide variety of additional purposes by many individuals and organizations outside the Employment Service. This chapter describes these uses on the basis of data derived from three primary sources: (1) a probability survey of purchasers of the fourth edition DOT, (2) a series of interviews with personnel at federal agencies targeted as DOT users, supplemented by a survey of state-level DOT users, and (3) a survey of researchers and review of published and unpublished work using or criticizing the DOT. The results from the probability survey of DOT purchasers suggest that a wide variety of organizations use the DOT in their work, especially educational institutions, government agencies, private for-profit companies, and nonprofit agencies. The DOT users in these organizations are engaged mainly in career and vocational counseling, library reference, rehabilitation counseling, personnel management, and employment placement. The DOT is most heavily used for its dictionary function: 95 percent of the DOT purchasers report that they use the DOT's job titles and definitions. Another frequently used part of the DOT is the classification and code structure: three fifths of the purchasers report using the DOT codes primarily for administrative and statistical reporting reasons. Although certain parts of the DOT are used more than others, there is an identifiable subset of organizations using every major DOT component. A total of 88 percent of the DOT purchasers, especially those in rehabilitation counseling, vocational education, labor force projections, and occupational information dissemination and educators in the counseling field, reported that discontinuing the DOT would adversely affect their work; 36 percent reported that the impact would be large or that discontinuance would seriously disrupt their work. Additionally, two thirds of the respondents reported that the DOT was very adequate for the purpose for which they use it. In offering suggestions as to how the DOT

OCR for page 45
USE OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES OUTSIDE THE U.S. 92 EMPLOYMENT SERVICE original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. might be improved, a majority of the purchaser sample indicated that career ladders should be incorporated into future editions; a strong interest was also expressed in having future editions bound in hard cover. Interviews with institutional users revealed four major institutional uses of the DOT: (1) Agencies such as the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training use the DOT for employment training purposes. (2) Some agencies such as the Bureau of Disability Insurance of the Social Security Administration use the DOT for disability determination. (3) Other agencies such as the Veterans Administration use the DOT for rehabilitation and employment counseling. (4) Vocational educators use the DOT for program planning, counseling, and curriculum development. The results from the survey of state-level users corroborates these findings: the two primary uses are for counseling and vocational education. The state-level users make substantial use of the job titles, definitions, and codes (as do the respondents from the DOT purchaser sample); they also report frequent use of SVP estimates of training time. The DOT has also been used by sociologists, psychologists, and economists in a broad range of research activities. The DOT code is frequently used to describe the socioeconomic distribution of subject samples and to match experimental groups with control groups on occupational class 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 force and in examining shifts in labor force composition. Economists often turn to these scales when studying the determinants of wages, 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. A number of new scales, inventories, and classification systems have also incorporated DOT data and scales. Although the Dictionary of Occupational Titles has become useful in many organizations and agencies outside the Employment Service, there is no firm evidence that the other products of the occupational analysis program have reached a similarly large audience. Although the monthly job information summaries are widely distributed within the Employment Service, they are used by a relatively small number of outside users. Career brochures are not widely used either inside or outside the Employment Service, yet each of these publications is used by an identifiable minority of each of the user samples.