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 46
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 47
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 48
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 49
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 50
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 51
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 52
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 53
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 54
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 55
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 82
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 83
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 84
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 85
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 86
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 87
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 88
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 89
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 90
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 91
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 92
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.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
occupational analysis
