Job Analysis and Job Evaluation Method Choice: User Qualifications and Implications for Applications and Research
type: CreativeWork
description: Research interest in the areas of job analysis and job evaluation has been increased recently as a result of attention being given to the comparable worth issue. The purpose of the present study was to assess the effects of job analysis and job evaluation method choice on the outcome of the salary determination process, and to investigate how user qualifications interact with methods. Within the context of the JAMES Matrix, two job analysis methods (CIT and FJA) were systematically paired with two job evaluation methods (ranking and point). Three groups of participants, representing distinctly different levels of expertise (method experts, content experts, and university students) evaluated four jobs (clerical, trades/craft, technical, and managerial) in order to determine the appropriate salaries. Data were analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of variance. Results of the salary determinations demonstrated a significant main effect for expertise, along with significant interactions involving job evaluation method x expertise, job descriptions x expertise and job descriptions x job evaluation method x expertise. Further analysis indicated no effect for incumbents evaluating jobs similar to their own. A three-way analysis of variance, with time as a dependent measure, showed that CIT took significantly more time than FJA. Results were discussed in terms of their implications for applications within the personnel management and industrial/organizational psychology arenas. Particular attention was given to the implications of the present findings to the direction of the comparable worth debate. Results were further discussed in terms of future research suggestions.
abstract: Research interest in the areas of job analysis and job evaluation has been increased recently as a result of attention being given to the comparable worth issue. The purpose of the present study was to assess the effects of job analysis and job evaluation method choice on the outcome of the salary determination process, and to investigate how user qualifications interact with methods. Within the context of the JAMES Matrix, two job analysis methods (CIT and FJA) were systematically paired with two job evaluation methods (ranking and point). Three groups of participants, representing distinctly different levels of expertise (method experts, content experts, and university students) evaluated four jobs (clerical, trades/craft, technical, and managerial) in order to determine the appropriate salaries. Data were analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of variance. Results of the salary determinations demonstrated a significant main effect for expertise, along with significant interactions involving job evaluation method x expertise, job descriptions x expertise and job descriptions x job evaluation method x expertise. Further analysis indicated no effect for incumbents evaluating jobs similar to their own. A three-way analysis of variance, with time as a dependent measure, showed that CIT took significantly more time than FJA. Results were discussed in terms of their implications for applications within the personnel management and industrial/organizational psychology arenas. Particular attention was given to the implications of the present findings to the direction of the comparable worth debate. Results were further discussed in terms of future research suggestions.
author: Herndon, James S.
keywords: Job analysis, Job evaluation, Applications, Qualifications, Industrial and Organizational Psychology
date published: 1986-04-01T08:00:00Z
date modified: 2026-07-24T03:35:23Z
provider: Old Dominion University
publisher: Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations
type: WebPage
source organization: Old Dominion University