880 likes | 1.28k Views
What’s Up DOT?. IARP Occupational Database Committee IARP Forensic Conference Hyatt Regency Bonaventure Weston, Florida October 31, 2008. Scope of Project. IODC → formed spring 2007 Purpose: Identify replacement of DOT Focus: research past efforts to update DOT
E N D
What’s Up DOT? IARP Occupational Database Committee IARP Forensic Conference Hyatt Regency Bonaventure Weston, Florida October 31, 2008
Scope of Project • IODC → formed spring 2007 • Purpose: • Identify replacement of DOT • Focus: • research past efforts to update DOT • current uses of DOT & O*NET • identify & evaluate other occupational databases • develop support to update/replace DOT
Scope of Project • Identified two occupational databases: eDOT, a product of Economic Research Institute; McDOT, a product of Vocationology, Inc. • Third database, based on the Common Metric Questionnaire (CMQ) may be ready in few years • Arranged to have training and use of these databases for study purposes. • First, needed to learn more about DOT
History of the DOT • Following Civil War, U.S. and Census Bureau began to classify occupations • First occupational dictionary: 1927, A Dictionary of Occupational Terms, Great Britain Ministry of Labour • Wagner Peyser Act, 1933: United States Employment Service (USES)-- match workers with jobs.
History of the DOT • Work on the DOT began around the same time; 1st Edition 1939 • Subsequent editions published 1949, 1965, 1977 • Supplements came out 1982, ’86, ’91 • 20 new occupations added in 1998 • Intended purpose: to assist USES in placing workers in jobs. • 1st Edition: skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled
History of the DOT • 1965 edition: worker traits, worker functions (Data, People, Things), Occupational Group Arrangements • 1977 edition: ~75,000 job analyses; 2,100+ new occupations; eliminated gender bias in job titles and descriptions; included detailed worker characteristics (SCO) • 1986 ed. added 761 new occupations • 1991 added 844, deleted 208; added GOE codes, GED, SVP, DLU
History of the DOT • Each definition includes: code, title, industry designation, alternate titles, body of definition, undefined related titles, and definition trailer (GOE, strength, GED-RML, SVP, DLU) • Basic concepts described in the DOT occupational definitions: element, task, position, job, and occupation.
History of the DOT • Major elements of an occupation: • What the worker does (data, people, things) • What gets done (work fields-WF) • Skill level to perform this work (SVP) • End product (materials, products, subject matter and services-MPSMS)
History of the DOT • DOT → 4 classification systems: • by job content (OGA) • by worker function (DPT) • by industry affiliation (Industry Designation) • alphabetically by title
History of the DOT • Job analysis → basis of the DOT • National Research Council (1999) defines occupational [job] analysis: "the tools and methods used to describe and label work, positions, jobs and occupations" • DOT defines an occupation as: “a collective description of individual jobs performed, with minor variations, in many establishments”
History of the DOT • The Handbook for Analyzing Jobs → job analysis methodology used in creation of DOT. • HAJ first published in 1944; 4th Edition in 1991 (RHAJ). • 1972 Edition published halfway through completion of 1977 DOT. • Two primary formats in job analysis: work-oriented—what gets done; and worker-oriented—what the worker does. HAJ/RHAJ uses both formats
History of the DOT • The Selected Characteristics of Occupations Defined in the Revised Dictionary of Occupational Titles (1993) • 1st edition 1966, updates in 1968, 1981, and 1993. • Includes DOT titles arranged by: GOE; SVP; strength; physical demands; environmental conditions; index of titles with DOT codes; definitions of the worker traits and functions
History of the DOT • Positive factors of the DOT: • use of skilled job analysts • task level descriptions • foundation built upon data people things • Worker traits, characteristics • Useful for TSA: MPSMS, WF, SVP • Attempt to cover national economy • Depth of information
Development of the DOT • Sample for DOT: all jobs in the US economy • County Business Patterns/Thomas Registry → used to identify # establishments in each industry. • Industries assigned to one of 11 field centers → average 42 industries/field center • “any industry” designation given to one field office
Development of the DOT • Each analyst identified which establishments to contact • Attempt to include one small, one medium and one large size establishment for each industry, and to focus on new and emerging occupations. • No clear supervision during process. • Appeared primary criteria for selecting establishment → proximity to field office • Employers: right of refusal; no incentives
Development of the DOT • Employers controlled which jobs were analyzed, and which employees were chosen for analysis. • Analyst chose which jobs to observe. • If job analyzed for the 3rd Edition, may complete abbreviated analysis or none at all. • If another analyst had recently completed a similar analysis, none would be done. • Observe 1-2 workers per job.
Development of the DOT • Variety methods to record data: HAJ format; abbreviated format; or simple notes. • Analysts not allowed to bring in tools or equipment to measure certain aspects of jobs—estimation and observation only. • Methods for rating worker traits were vague—particularly for aptitudes, temperaments and interests.
Updates of the DOT • Much time has passed since any onsite job analyses of DOT occupations
How the DOT is used • Basis for transferable skills analysis • Primary uses: career & voc counseling, SSD • Secondary uses: library reference, personnel management, employee placement, govt. uses, research, others
O*NET • Outgrowth of the Advisory Panel on the DOT (APDOT) from the early 1990s • Dept. of Labor “replacement” for the DOT • Skills-based database rather than task-based dictionary • Preliminary version released Dec. 1997 with first version (O*NET 98) out Dec. 1998
O*NET • Utilized SOC coding rather than DOT • Current version is O*NET 13 • The 12, 761 DOT occupations have been aggregated/collapsed to 812 groups • Composite information from many jobs; not intended to describe a particular job • Uses mean data rather than mode used by DOT
Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ) • PAQ’s business: create useful work and labor economic reports • Structured job analysis; 187 items (plus 8 items re: comp.) called “job elements” • Job elements are worker-oriented;6 domains: information input; work output (physical activities and tools); mental processes; relationships with others; job context (physical and social environment); and other work characteristics (such as pace and structure)
PAQ • PAQ dedicated solely to job analysis services since 1972 • Terminology, definitions and rating scales different than that used in DOT • Requires post-college graduate reading level • Job analysts or supervisors usually complete PAQ
PAQ • PAQ trains subscriber employers in job analysis techniques—in person and online • Limited coverage of managerial, supervisory, executive and professional work led to development of separate questionnaire • Average reliabilities—item and re-rate—range .68-.80
PAQ/DAQ • DAQ: Disability Analysis Questionnaire. Developed by PAQ • Includes 99 questions from the PAQ that are most closely related to items from the DOT/HAJ • ERI modified DAQ slightly—made certain the questions best-matched those of the DOT • The DAQ questions are the ones asked of incumbents when visiting websites
eDOT • The “enhanced DOT” -- database and software program developed by Economic Research Institute (ERI) • ERI began as compensation information provider in 1987 • Started the eDOT Skills Project in 2002 to collect data and update the DOT • In 2004, ERI purchased PAQ; PAQ operates eDOT Skills Project under a license with ERI • Database has two parts: archived DOT and new eDOT which includes the old DOT
eDOT • Includes 64 SCO characteristics + 35 new factors such as keyboarding, education, mental and cognitive factors, etc. • Includes 20 measures from SSA’s Mental Residual Capacity paper • Various people contribute data: subject matter experts (job analysts trained in the use of the PAQ; voc rehab counselors; major disability carriers; workers compensation analysts; and primarily incumbents visiting websites Career Builder, SalaryExpert, SalariesReview.
eDOT • Each data point has associated reliability, standard error and deviation calculated • 1,000-1,500 job analyses done per year, including those by incumbents • Over 1 million PAQ job analyses included in eDOT (completed since 1974) • Sample is one of convenience • Control for sampling error by using multiple sources of data
eDOT • Differences between eDOT and DOT • Different rating scales, definitions, terms • eDOT→ uses revised version of SIC which it developed, called eSIC • eDOT→fluid database; DOT→fixed • eDOT→convenience sample; DOT→attempt to capture all jobs in the national economy • Electronic v. paper • PAQ→ interviewing worker, not always observing; DOT→observation
eDOT • Examples of new jobs added to eDOT computer sys admin 030.162-500 call center rep 299.357-201 asst. mgr retail store 185.167-505 executive asst 169.167-911 sales assistant 209.562-800 maint. helper 806.687-011 CAD/CAM Tech 017.262-519
eDOT • ERI/PAQ “masks” jobs • Criteria for exclusion: • job analyses over 15 years old • face validity (abalone diver) • 10 or less requests for the job • not listed on job boards or salary surveys • not mentioned on any loan applications • not on any labor/proxy/form 990 • not mentioned on Calif. state work comp
eDOT • Examples of “masked” jobs in eDOT: animal breeder410.161-010 military recruiter 166.267-026 pres., financial inst. 186.117-054 police commissioner 188.117-118 feed blender 520.685-094 collator operator 208.685-010
eDOT • As of January 2008, ERI had • Added 717 new occupations • Removed 4,103 occupations (no/low frequency) • Verified the existence of 8,658 occupations • Total of 9,375 occupations in eDOT, compared to 12,761 in the DOT and 812 in O*NET • As of July 2008, have added WF and MPSMS to all jobs in eDOT
McDOT History • McCroskey Dictionary of Occupational Titles (McDOT) • Part of the McCroskey Vocational Quotient System (MVQS) • Based on VDARE • McDOT includes both the old DOT and O*NET. • Data has been fused from both sources, identifying 24 most significant worker traits
UNUM: Project with eDOT • Methodology for selecting eDOT • Findings • Future Directions
Issues with DOTMiller et al. Study 1980 • Work, Jobs and Occupations: A Critical Review of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles • Comprehensive review & evaluation of the 1977, 4th Ed. DOT, conducted on behalf of the National Research Council, at the request of the Department of Labor
Issues with DOTMiller et al. Study 1980 • “The comprehensiveness, reliability and accuracy of the DOT are in large part a function of the data collection and analysis procedures used to produce it.” p.114
Issues with DOTMiller et al. Study 1980 • Data Collection/Methodology Issues: • Lack of written procedures on how DOT produce • Majority of principles used to create DOT were established in 1939 & 1949 • Sampling plan “complicated and indirect,” did not include all jobs in US economy
Issues with DOTMiller et al. Study 1980 • Data Collection/Methodology Issues: • Heavy orientation to manufacturing sector • Limited review of jobs requiring cognitive skills over physical skills • Inadequate update schedule
Issues with DOTMiller et al. Study 1980 • Found analysts often unable to provide concrete explanation for how they rated worker traits besides subjective means or past experience • Some occupations not reviewed at all; others reviewed excessively: material handler → 652 job analyses • 1979 study random job titles found 81% of 4th Ed. descriptions exactly the same as the 3rd Edition
Issues with DOTMiller et al. Study 1980 • Data Collection/Methodology Issues: • 16% occupational descriptions completed without a single job analysis • 29% based on one job analysis • 19% based on two job analyses • 36% based on three or more analyses
Issues with DOTMiller et al. Study 1980 • Reliability/Validity Issues: • Validity: measurements of worker traits/functions found to be fairly unreliable: “vague and ambiguously defined. Not readily apparent what the variables are intended to measure” (p. 164) • Worker traits/functions developed in the 1950s—questionable validity for today’s labor market • Question whether GED and SVP measure prestige or social status of occupations
Issues with DOTMiller et al. Study 1980 • Reliability/Validity Issues: • GED scale validated against curriculum content, not validated for occupational performance • Working conditions & physical demands appear to be developed for unskilled, physical jobs • Reliability: items are scored subjectively; raters had trouble assigning some factors, particularly SVP and aptitudes • Reliabilities higher for manufacturing jobs than for service jobs
Issues with DOT • Cain et al. (1983) study on reliabilities of different ratings. • Two job descriptions per 24 occupations; experienced analysts rated the factors • Found acceptable reliabilities for: data, people, GED reasoning, GED language and SVP • Modest reliabilities for things, GED math, strength factors and location • Reliabilities higher for manufacturing jobs
Issues with DOT • Botterbusch (1993): DOT weaknesses: • Data people things not actually a hierarchy—data is, people is not and things is two hierarchies • GED not directly related to education • SVP does not distinguish between formal and informal training • Difficulty defining, using and defending temperaments • Too many titles
Issues with DOT • Dunn & Growick (2000): weaknesses: • Failure to include variables such as org. setting and worker responsibility level • Low reliability of worker traits • Redundant classification system • Skills that are psychometrically questionable, such as GED and SVP • Ambiguous definitions of worker traits • Questionable validity of worker traits
Issues with DOT • Harvey (Fine et al. 2004) addressed weaknesses of DOT: • Legal and psychometric defensibility in the use of holistic scales to rate worker traits—tend to show low inter-rater reliability and low discriminant validity • Lack of reasonable update schedule
Issues with DOT • National Research Council (1999) • “Unwieldy size” • Growing differences between job descriptions and jobs as they actually occur in the labor market today • Too much detail in each definition • Jobs described by task
Issues with DOT • National Research Council cont. (1999) • Lack of information on factors such as skills, abilities, and knowledge requirements that are either not collected or not reported • Little or no reported information on cognitive factors • Expense of updating • Difficulty of linking it with other databases