Abstract
We fundamentally disagree with Sanchez and Levine (this issue) on several issues.
Terminologically, we are troubled by their failure to differentiate between the descriptive
process of rating verifiable work characteristics (i.e., job analysis) versus the subjective
process of inferring worker ability and `other' (AO) requirements (i.e., job specification).
Although `consequential validity' is crucial for evaluating job specifications, it is largely
irrelevant for assessing properly conducted job analyses. Ontologically, we reject their
relativist view that an objective reality does not exist when describing work activities.
When verifiable descriptors are rated using sound rating scales, independent judges can
definitively assess position rating accuracy; such a review constitutes all the `validity'
evidence needed for the job analysis per se. We discuss a number of additional concerns,
including the way in which practitioners deal with true cross-position ratings variability,
and the role of holistic inferences.
Users
Please
log in to take part in the discussion (add own reviews or comments).