Abstract
This study addresses an open research question in regard to a well-established and widely-used job analysis system, Functional Job Analysis (FJA): Are consensus ratings of the FJA scales more reliable than the independent scale ratings that are the norm in job analysis application and the related research literature? In our experimental study, we found that this is not the case: no significant difference is found between consensus and independent ratings of the FJA scales. The reasons for this finding are explored as well as its relevance to the validity of the FJA system. Implications for other work and job analysis systems are discussed.
Highlights
Despite decades of research on the reliability of job analysis ratings, a question remains unanswered that is addressed in this study: Does the reliability of Functional Job Analysis (FJA) ratings obtained by consensus across multiple raters exceed those made by independent raters?
The reliability of the FJA scales establishes that the content of the job task, standardized through the use of controlled job language, is sufficiently rigorous to ensure the consistency of job language within and between FJA tasks
The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of the FJA scales under their recommended conditions of administration: Ratings of tasks are made individually on the written tasks contained in the FJA task bank by trained job analysts, after which these raters arrive at a single set of consensus ratings
Summary
The substantive content approach requires the rater to only make judgments about and ratings of the task content (e.g., the complexity of a task in relation to Things, Data, and People).. The substantive content approach requires the rater to only make judgments about and ratings of the task content (e.g., the complexity of a task in relation to Things, Data, and People).1 These FJA ratings of substantive content are used primarily for quality control in the collection of the FJA data but can be used when developing personnel interventions (e.g., selection, job design). The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of the FJA scales under their recommended conditions of administration: Ratings of tasks are made individually on the written tasks contained in the FJA task bank by trained job analysts, after which these raters arrive at a single set of consensus ratings. Implications of the findings for the validity of the FJA system are discussed
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
