Toward definition of the structure of work: The development of a general-purpose job analysis instrument

Simple item page
dc.contributor.advisorHowell, William C.en_US
dc.contributor.advisorAutrey, Herbert S.en_US
dc.creatorLynskey, Michelle C.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2009-06-03T23:55:30Zen_US
dc.date.available2009-06-03T23:55:30Zen_US
dc.date.issued1989en_US
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of the current investigation was to develop and validate a general-purpose job analysis questionnaire capable of analyzing all types and levels of jobs, and to use this questionnaire as a means to investigate the underlying structure of work. The instrument was developed using existing items from the Job Element Inventory (Cornelius & Hakel, 1978) and managerial, supervisory, executive, and professional items which were based on dimensions reported in the literature. After completion of a pilot study, the questionnaire was administered to incumbents from a sample of jobs from various public and private sector organizations, resulting in the collection of 395 questionnaire responses. The job ratings were subjected to an exploratory factor analyses, and five overall and 28 divisional dimensions were interpreted. A policy-capturing approach was used to assess the validity of the questionnaire; R$\sp2$s ranged from.38 to.68. A confirmatory factor analysis investigated the following competing hypotheses of work structure. (1) The dimensionality of work resembles three dimensions: Working with People and Data, Physical Activities and Related Environmental Conditions, and Using Machines and Equipment. This structure is similar to Fine and Wiley's (1971) theory of work, which includes three factors: Data, People, and Things. (2) The dimensionality of work resembles six dimensions: Information Input, Mental Processes, Work Output, Relationships with Other Persons, Job Context, and Other Job Characteristics. These dimensions resemble information-processing theory and the a-priori divisions used by McCormick, Jeanneret, & Mecham (1977) to catagorize work. A covariance analysis confirmed the first two factors of the first hypothesis, but only three of the factors from the second hypothesis. Implications of these findings are discussed.en_US
dc.format.extent349 p.en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_US
dc.identifier.callnoThesis Psych. 1989 Lynskeyen_US
dc.identifier.citationLynskey, Michelle C.. "Toward definition of the structure of work: The development of a general-purpose job analysis instrument." (1989) Diss., Rice University. <a href="https://hdl.handle.net/1911/16263">https://hdl.handle.net/1911/16263</a>.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1911/16263en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.rightsCopyright is held by the author, unless otherwise indicated. Permission to reuse, publish, or reproduce the work beyond the bounds of fair use or other exemptions to copyright law must be obtained from the copyright holder.en_US
dc.subjectIndustrial psychologyen_US
dc.titleToward definition of the structure of work: The development of a general-purpose job analysis instrumenten_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.type.materialTexten_US
thesis.degree.departmentPsychologyen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineSocial Sciencesen_US
thesis.degree.grantorRice Universityen_US
thesis.degree.levelDoctoralen_US
thesis.degree.nameDoctor of Philosophyen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
9012834.PDF
Size:
12.63 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
Collections
Rice University Theses and Dissertations