Are Analysts' Occupational Ability Requirement Ratings Necessary?: A Look at Using Other Occupational Descriptors to Capture the Rating Policy of Analysts

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Dr. M. A. Wilson, Committee Co-Chair en_US
dc.contributor.advisor Dr. J. W. Cunningham, Committee Co-Chair en_US
dc.contributor.advisor Dr. D. W. Drewes, Committee Member en_US
dc.contributor.author Wilson, Jason Ashley en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2010-04-02T18:06:21Z
dc.date.available 2010-04-02T18:06:21Z
dc.date.issued 2003-07-25 en_US
dc.identifier.other etd-07222003-125153 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/1686
dc.description.abstract The Occupational Information Network (O*NET) contains descriptors for a number of content domains. Trained analysts have rated over 1,100 occupations on those descriptors. The present study focused on four of the O*NET descriptor domains: knowledge, skills, generalized work activities (GWAs), and abilities. The ability domain was previously identified by a panel of experts as being more abstract and difficult to rate than other descriptor domains. This study addressed that issue by running regression analyses using factors derived from knowledge, skill, and GWA ratings to predict ratings on the ability descriptors. The predicted ability ratings were then factor analyzed and compared to factors derived from the actual ability ratings. Although all of the resultant multiple correlations were statistically significant, they were not all of sufficient magnitude to justify replacing actual ability ratings with ability ratings estimated from the more concrete domain descriptors. It is likely that the R's for many of the abilities were attenuated by unreliability in their ratings. In general, the cognitive abilities proved to be more predictable than the motor and perceptual abilities. It would appear practical to estimate requirements for some but not all of the abilities with ratings on the other domain descriptors. Factors derived from the predicted ability ratings showed some similarity to those derived from the actual ability ratings, thus lending further support to the validity of the predicted ratings. en_US
dc.rights I hereby certify that, if appropriate, I have obtained and attached hereto a written permission statement from the owner(s) of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my thesis, dissertation, or project report, allowing distribution as specified below. I certify that the version I submitted is the same as that approved by my advisory committee. I hereby grant to NC State University or its agents the non-exclusive license to archive and make accessible, under the conditions specified below, my thesis, dissertation, or project report in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis, dissertation or project report. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis, dissertation, or project report. en_US
dc.subject generalized work activities en_US
dc.subject skills en_US
dc.subject knowledges en_US
dc.subject abilities en_US
dc.subject descriptors en_US
dc.subject O*NET en_US
dc.subject policy capturing en_US
dc.subject concrete vs. abstract en_US
dc.subject level vs. knowledge en_US
dc.title Are Analysts' Occupational Ability Requirement Ratings Necessary?: A Look at Using Other Occupational Descriptors to Capture the Rating Policy of Analysts en_US
dc.degree.name MS en_US
dc.degree.level thesis en_US
dc.degree.discipline Psychology en_US


Files in this item

Files Size Format View
etd.pdf 308.0Kb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record