Table Of Content\Z.SIZ.
PURDUE UNIVERSITY
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION
Minnie Caddell Miles
THE VALIDITY OF A JOB DESCRIPTION CHECK
LIST FOR EVALUATING OFFICE JOBS
COMPLIES WITH THE UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS ON GRADUATION THESES
AND IS APPROVED BY ME AS FULFILLING THIS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
Doctor of Philosophy
Professor in Charge of Thesis
Heap of School or Department
TO THE LIBRARIAN:-----
xnex
THIS THESIS IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS CONFIDENTIAL.
FBOjFMBOB TST GHAJ9GB
GRAD, SCHOOL FORM 9
THE VALIDITY OF A JOB DESCRIPTION CHECK-LIST
FOR EVALUATING OFFICE JOBS
A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty
of
Purdue University
by
Minnie Caddell Miles
In partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
of
Doctor of Philosophy
January, 1951
ProQuest Number: 27714141
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
uest
ProQuest 27714141
Published by ProQuest LLC (2019). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am deeply indebted to Mr. A. F. Alois and Mr* W. G.
Stieperis of the General Motors Corporation; to Mr* Lynn P.
Hardin of the Central Foundry; to Mr* George Rothenbusch
of Oxford Filing Company; and to Mr* Joseph Mohan and Mr*
Earl Brooks of the Armco Steel Corporation, for their
cooperation In furnishing the data for this project. With
out their kind assistance the study would not have been
possible *
The greatest debt of all is to my major professor.
Dr. C. H. Lawshe• For his unwavering patience, his con
stant readiness to give counsel and advice, and his thought
ful guidance during the various phases of the study, I am
most grateful*
Appreciation is likewise due Dr. Joseph Tiffin, Dr. E.
McCormick, Dr. J. A. Estey, and Professor W. J. Richardson,
members of my Committee, for their Interest and encourage
ment *
ABSTRACT
THE VALIDITY OF A JOB DESCRIPTION CHECK-LIST
FOR EVALUATING OFFICE JOBS
Purpose* To determine the validity of a Job Descrip
tion Cbeck-List for evaluating office jobs*
Background of Problem* Results of research by the Life
Office Management Association, and by Culbertson and Dudek,
- Purdue University, led to the hypothesis that the check-list
approach would be a valid one for the evaluation of office
jobs*
Procedure* Data were obtained from five companies*
Key office jobs were rated on a paired-comparison basis by
selected judges? check-lists were completed for the key
jobs; and the ten operations judged most important were
indicated* Judges1 ratings were used as criteria*
order and shrunken multiple R fs using various groupings of
the most important operations were determined* A generalized
multiple-regression equation was set up for cross-validation
purposes, using data from two of the companies which served
as ’•hold-out11 groups*
Results* The reliability of the judges1 ratings, deter
mined by the Spearman-Brown formula, ranged from *939 for
Company III to *982 for Company V* The correlation of check
list operations with the criteria resulted in a range from
ii
*795 for Company II to ,863 for Company III when using the
five operations judged most important. The shrunken multiple
R obtained by the ütiherry-Doolittle selection procedure ranged
from ,779 for Company I to ,859 for Company III, In no
instance did the order r Increase with the inclusion of
more than the five operations judged most important to the
job. Likewise, the shrunken multiple R showed no increase
when more than the five operations judged most important were
used for computing the order r, A generalized regres
sion equation, X-^ * was set up for use on two "hold
out" groups.
Conclusions:
1, The judges* ratings, which were used as criteria,
had high reliability,
2, The five operations judged most important to a job
appear to be the optimum number for evaluation purposes.
Neither the order r based on more operations, nor the
shrunken multiple R computed from various groupings of
operations yields a significantly higher relationship,
3, For the promotion of good industrial relations, it
is considered advisable that all operations be Included,
with the five most important operations being given most
weight.
4, The generalized regression equation when applied to
the two’hold-out" groups predicted the criterion values
almost as well as did the regression equation derived
directly from the data.
ill
5# Wittiin tiie limita of this study, the Job Description
Check-List of Office Operations appears to be a valid instru
ment for evaluation purposes.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION...................................................1
BACKGROUND OF PROBLEM . . . . . . . ....................... 2
Job Elements as a Basis for Office Job Evaluation . . . . 3
Development of an Office Job Description Cbeck-List . . . 3
Revision and. Application of the Job Description Check
list ............ 4
PROCEDURE AND RESULTS.......................................... 4
Procurement of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Key Office Jobs from Cooperating Concerns . . . . . . . . 5
Paired-Comparison Ratings of Key Jobs by Selected Judges 6
Check-Lists Completed for Key Jobs .......... . . . . 6
Analysis of Data......................... . . 7
Correlation of Judges1 Ratings--Used as Criteria..........7
Correlations of Check-LIst Operations with the Criteria 9
Cross-Validation on ^Hold-Out” Groups » ............... .15
Correlation ,of Salary with Total Point Values............16
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...................................... 17
REFERENCES ............................................. 19
APPENDIX A. JOB DESCRIPTION CnECK-LIST OF OFFICE OPERATIONS 21
APPENDIX B. CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF KEY OFFICE JOBS
AND RATERS...................................... 26
APPENDIX C. EXAMPLE OF PAIRED-COMPARISON RATING CARDS . . . 28
APPENDIX D. INSTRUCTIONS FOR MAKING PAIRED-COMPARISON
RATINGS......................................... 30
APPENDIX E. PROCEDURES FOR PREPARING CHECK-LISTS FOR KEY
JOBS....................... 32
APPENDIX F. TABLES...........................................
LISTS OF FIGURES AND TABLES
List of Figures
Figure Page
1* Correlations of the Means of the Highest Scale
Values with the Criteria........................10
2. Correlations of the Means of the Operations Judged
Most Important with the Criteria . . . . . . . . 12
List of Tables
Table Page
1. Intercorrelations Between Raters, Company I . . . . 36
2. Intercorrelations Between Raters, Company II . . . 37
3. Intercorrelations Between Raters, Company III . . . 38
4. Intercorrelations Between Raters, Company IV . . . .39
5. Intercorrelations Between Raters, Company V . . . . 40
6. Reliability of Raters as Determined by Shen1s
Formula..................................... 41
7. Reliability of Judges * Pooled Ratings..............42
8. Correlations of the Means of the Highest Scale
Values with the Criteria and Intercorrelations
with the Means of the Operations Judged Most
Important ................ 43
9* Multiple Correlations Between Mean Values of
Various Combinations of Operations Judged Most
Important and the Criteria ................ . . 4 4
