Abstract
AbstractCredentialing examination developers rely on task (job) analyses for establishing inventories of task and knowledge areas in which competency is required for safe and successful practice in target occupations. There are many ways in which task‐related information may be gathered from practitioner ratings, each with its own advantage and limitation. Two of the myriad alternative task analysis rating approaches are compared in situ: one establishing relative task saliency through a single scale of rated importance and another employing a composite of several independent scales. Outcomes regarding tasks ranked by two practitioner groups are compared. A relatively high degree of association is observed between tasks ranked through each approach, yielding comparable, though not identical examination blueprints.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
