Abstract
Jones, Main, Butler, and Johnson (1982) stated that job‐naive raters provided with only narrative job descriptions can produce valid and reliable Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ) ratings. This implies that traditional time‐ and labor‐intensive methods of collecting job analysis information (e.g., interviews, direct observation) are not necessary in order to accurately complete the PAQ. However, PAQ ratings in the Jones et al. study were not validated against an external standard. Consequently, their conclusion is open to question. To determine the convergent validity of the Jones et al. approach, we provided job‐naive raters with varying amounts of job descriptive information and, in some cases, prior practice rating the job with another job analysis instrument; PAQ ratings were validated against those of job analysts who were also job content experts. None of the reduced job descriptive information conditions (or the practice) enabled job‐naive raters to obtain either acceptable levels of convergent validity with experts or high interrater reliability. Two areas of research that may make the PAQ more time‐ and labor‐efficient are discussed.
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.
