Practice network: Competency modeling: Viagraized job analysis or impotent imposter?

1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Harris
Keyword(s):  
Job Analysis ◽  
Competency Modeling ◽  
Practice Network

Job Analysis and Competency Modeling

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga F. Voskuijl ◽  
Arne Evers
Keyword(s):  
Job Analysis ◽  
Work Analysis ◽  
Competency Modeling ◽  
Changing World

It has been argued that job analysis is not relevant to the changing world of work; some authors find it is outdated or are of the opinion that it could even be declared dead. Competency modeling is often seen as the solution to the problem; the term is fashionable and probably more marketable, but of course there is more to it than that. This article focuses on the role of “conventional” job or work analysis, and discusses the differences between these approaches to the analysis of work and competency modeling. It describes the characteristics of job analysis and some well-known instruments and methods of job analysis. The article presents a variety of approaches to competency modeling. It also contrasts and integrates job analysis and competency modeling. Finally, the article summarizes the consequences of past developments in work for job analysis.

Unanswered questions in competency modeling and job analysis

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A. Wilson ◽  
Jonathan D. Levine ◽  
Frederick P. Morgeson ◽  
David J. Thomsen ◽  
Robert J. Harvey
Keyword(s):  
Job Analysis ◽  
Competency Modeling

Job Validation Studies and Physical Agility Testing: Is the Vendor Telling You What They Think You Want or Are You Telling Them What You Need?

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 5-11
Author(s):  
E. Randolph Soo Hoo ◽  
Stephen L. Demeter
Keyword(s):  
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ◽  
Job Analysis ◽  
Specific Work ◽  
Test Protocol ◽  
Systematic Method ◽  
Technical Standards ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Physical Abilities ◽  
Specific Factors ◽  
Key Terms

Abstract Referring agents may ask independent medical evaluators if the examinee can return to work in either a normal or a restricted capacity; similarly, employers may ask external parties to conduct this type of assessment before a hire or after an injury. Functional capacity evaluations (FCEs) are used to measure agility and strength, but they have limitations and use technical jargon or concepts that can be confusing. This article clarifies key terms and concepts related to FCEs. The basic approach to a job analysis is to collect information about the job using a variety of methods, analyze the data, and summarize the data to determine specific factors required for the job. No single, optimal job analysis or validation method is applicable to every work situation or company, but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offers technical standards for each type of validity study. FCEs are a systematic method of measuring an individual's ability to perform various activities, and results are matched to descriptions of specific work-related tasks. Results of physical abilities/agilities tests are reported as “matching” or “not matching” job demands or “pass” or “fail” meeting job criteria. Individuals who fail an employment physical agility test often challenge the results on the basis that the test was poorly conducted, that the test protocol was not reflective of the job, or that levels for successful completion were inappropriate.

Determinants of Interrater Reliability of Job Analysis: A Meta-analysis

2002 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga F. Voskuijl ◽  
Tjarda van Sliedregt
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Interrater Reliability ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Job Analysis ◽  
Job Descriptions ◽  
Job Description ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Descriptive Information ◽  
Interrater Reliability Coefficients ◽  
Reliability Coefficients

Summary: This paper presents a meta-analysis of published job analysis interrater reliability data in order to predict the expected levels of interrater reliability within specific combinations of moderators, such as rater source, experience of the rater, and type of job descriptive information. The overall mean interrater reliability of 91 reliability coefficients reported in the literature was .59. The results of experienced professionals (job analysts) showed the highest reliability coefficients (.76). The method of data collection (job contact versus job description) only affected the results of experienced job analysts. For this group higher interrater reliability coefficients were obtained for analyses based on job contact (.87) than for those based on job descriptions (.71). For other rater categories (e.g., students, organization members) neither the method of data collection nor training had a significant effect on the interrater reliability. Analyses based on scales with defined levels resulted in significantly higher interrater reliability coefficients than analyses based on scales with undefined levels. Behavior and job worth dimensions were rated more reliable (.62 and .60, respectively) than attributes and tasks (.49 and .29, respectively). Furthermore, the results indicated that if nonprofessional raters are used (e.g., incumbents or students), at least two to four raters are required to obtain a reliability coefficient of .80. These findings have implications for research and practice.

Review of Recent Developments in Job Analysis.

1990 ◽  
Vol 35 (10) ◽  
pp. 1008-1008
Author(s):  
No authorship indicated
Keyword(s):  
Job Analysis ◽  
Recent Developments

Building a joint-service classification research roadmap: Job analysis methodologies.

1995 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dierdre J. Knapp ◽  
Teresa L. Russell ◽  
John P. Campbell
Keyword(s):  
Job Analysis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document