I__. - International Military Testing Association

These means were factor analyzed to produce job groupings. The
six-factor solution accounted for 77.4% of the variance.
Experimental Desiqn
The results of the factor analyses derived from each of the
holistic methods were compared to the results derived from the job
inventory method. For this study, the job inventory method was
considered to be the criterion and the holistic methods were
considered predictors. An agreement was defined as occurring when _
a predictor agreed with the criterion concerning the placement of
a job in a group. The percentage of agreement is the total number
of agreements divided by, the total number of jobs.
RESULTS
The number of jobs in each grouping for the three holistic methods
and for the job inventory method is shown below in Table 1.
Table 1
Number of Jobs in Each Groupinq for Each Method
Method
Grouping
1 2 3 4 5 6
Job Inventory 3 45 8 10 17 4
Psychologist 17 24 7 10 16 13
(Job Description)
Staffing Specialist 4 34 7 9 14 19
(Job Description)
Staffing Specialist
(Job Titles)
2 19 12 10 30 14
As one can see from this table, the number of jobs per grouping was
relatively stable across all four methods in Groupings 3 and 4.
Groupings 1, 2, and 5 produced relatively good agreement in terms
of the number of jobs to be included between the job inventory
method and two of the three holistic methods. In Grouping 6, there
was relatively good agreement across the three holistic methods but
not with the job inventory method.
66