Title: Current job evaluation practices in hospitals
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00097964/00001
 Material Information
Title: Current job evaluation practices in hospitals An appraisal
Physical Description: vii, 278 leaves : illus. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Belote, Arthur Furman, 1923-
Publication Date: 1962
Copyright Date: 1962
Subject: Hospitals -- Personnel management   ( lcsh )
Economics and Business Administration thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Economics and Business Administration -- UF
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Thesis: Thesis- University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 232-245.
Additional Physical Form: Also available on World Wide Web
General Note: Manuscript copy.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00097964
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000549707
oclc - 13281969
notis - ACX4004


This item has the following downloads:

currentjobevalua00belorich ( PDF )

Full Text







August, 1962


The author would like to express appreciation for

assistance rendered by the following members of the

dissertation committee: Dr. Ralph Blodgett, Dr. William

Fox, Dr. Donald J. Hart, Dr. John B. McFerrin and

Dr. Ralph Thompson. A particular expression of gratitude

for helpful suggestions and criticisms relevant to the

problem under consideration is due Dr. McFerrin, Chairman

of the Committee and Dr. William Fox under whose guidance

the dissertation was written.

In addition, a word of appreciation to the many

hospital administrators and personnel managers who gave

so freely of their time in answering questions and filling

out survey sheets. Without their cooperation this study

would not have been possible.

June, 1962 Arthur Furman Belote

Norfolk, Virginia



Acknowledgments..... .............................

List of Tables...................................


I. Introduction............................

II. The Evolution of Job Evaluation:



A Historical Perspective...............

Results of the Hospital Study.............

Major Considerations in Developing a
Point Plan of Job Evaluation for
Hospitals .......... ...................









Bibliography ......... .......,.

Appendifxes ........ 00000**00000*000Q*.. .. ... .


Table Page

1. Comparison of Job Labor Grade Displace-
ment for Six Different Industrial
Organizations......................... 37

2. Average Intercorrelations of Ratings Using
a Simplified Job Evaluation System
and the NEMA System ..................... 47

3. Coefficients of Reliability for Two Labor
and Two Management Job Evaluation
Committee Members.......... ............. 49

4. Present Status of Job Evaluation in
Hospitals .................. ............ 92

5. Distribution of Formal Hospital Job Eval-
uation Plans by Type (Combined Survey
Results)................................ 94

6. Year of Establishment of Hospital Job
Evaluation Plans (Combined Survey
Results)........... .................... 96

7. Length of Time Required to Install Hospital
Job Evaluation Plans by Type (Combined
Survey Results)......................... 97

8. Number of Hospitals Reporting Use of Job
Analyses and Descriptions for all
Hospital Jobs (Combined Survey Results). 99

9. Methods Employed by Hospitals to Secure
Information for Job Descriptions
(Combined Survey Results)............... 102

10. Person(s) Responsible for Writing Job
Descriptions for the Hospital
(Combined Survey Results)............... 105


11. Person Involved in Final Approval of
Hospital Job Descriptions (Mailed
Survey Results Only).................... 106

12. Extent of Hospital Usage of Community Wage
Surveys in Setting Wage Rates (Combined
Survey Results)...... ................... 107

13. Frequency of Hospital Wage Surveys
(Combined Survey Results)............... 108

14. Extent of Hospital Usage of Job De-
scriptions Rather than Job Titles
in Securing Wage Information (Combined
Survey Results) ........................ 110

15. Means Used by Hospitals in Undertaking
Wage Surveys (Mailed Survey Results
Only) ....... ............. .............. 111

16. Types of Jobs on Which Hospitals Seek
Wage Information (Mailed Survey Re-
sults Only)............. ................. 112

17. Sources Contacted by Hospitals in seeking
Wage Information (Mailed Survey
Results Only)........................... 114

18. Titles of Hospital Personnel Comprising
the Job Evaluation Committee (Listed
in Order of Frequency of Response)
(Combined Survey Results)............... 117

19. Distribution of Number of Members Serving
on the Hospital Job Evaluation Com-
mittee (Combined Survey Results)........ 120

20. Individual or Group Responsible for Devel-
oping, Installing and Day-to-Day Oper-
ation of the Hospital Job Evaluation
Plan (Combined Survey Results).......... 124

21. Hospitals Indicating Automatic Inclusion
of the Immediate Superior in the
Rating Group (Combined Survey Rssults).. 127



22. Distribution of Number cf Persons Serving
in the Hospital Rating Group (Combined
Survey Results)............... ........... 129

23. Title of Person(s) Actually Rating Jobs
in the Hospital (Listed in Order of
Frequency of Response). (Combined Survey
Results)..... ........................... 130

24. Methods Used by Hospitals in .Securing
Acceptance of the Job Evaluation Plan
(Mailed Survey Results Only)............ 133

25. Factors Used in Rating Hospital Jobs (Based
on a Total of 50 Point Plans)........... 138

26. Inter-Hospital Comparison of Factor
Weightings....... ............... ........ 143

27. Inter-Hospital Comparison of the
Factor "Education"*....*................ 146

28. Number of Degrees for Major Factors Used
in 50 Hospital Job Evaluation Plans..... 148

29. Extent of Usage of Factor Reduction in
Hospital Job Evaluation Programs (Com-
bined Survey Results).................. 150

30. Extent of Usage of Reliability Checks on
Hospial Job Evaluation Plans (Combined
Survey Results).... .................. 153

31. Extent of Usage of Validity Checks on
Hospital Job Evaluation Plans (Combined
Survey Results).......... ............... 157

32. Problems Encountered in Operating the Job
Evaluation Plan in the Hospital (Mailed
Survey Results Only)................... 162

33. Master Rating Plan for Use in Rating
Hospital Jobs........................... 176

34. Hypothetical Key Job Rates Showing Relative
Constancy Over Time.................... 215





The Logic of Job Evaluation

The United States Department of Labor defines job

evaluation in the following terms:

The complete operation of determining
the value of an individual job in an
organization in relation to all other
jobs in the organization. It begins
with the job analysis to obtain job
descriptions and includes relating the
descriptions by soe system designed
to determine the relative value of the
jobs or grouping of jobs.

A study of the most authoritative writers in this field

reveals a general agreement as to the definition of the term.

Although job evaluation has received widespread

acceptance, especially in the industrial area, most plans

in operation today leave much to be desired. True, a great

deal of experimentation has taken place and a number of

1United States Department of Labor, Industrial Job
Evaluation Systems (Washington, D. C.: Department of Labor,
United States Employment Service, Occupational Analysis and
Industrial Services Division, October 1957), p. 19.



so-called "authorities" on job evaluation have emerged; how-

ever, most of the resultant "scientific" developments have

been based solely on the opinions of these authorities.

Since one opinion may be as good as another, the process of

job evaluation still retains a high degree of subjectivity.

The evaluation plan must be relieved of this subjectivity if

it is to become a sound tool of management. The only way to

achieve this objective is to subject the plan to systematic

checks on its validity and reliability.

The "theory" underlying the development of a valid and

reliable job evaluation plan is quite logical and not diffi-

cult to comprehend. The validity concept has its foundation

in the development of independent, external criteria of going

rates for key jobs. These criteria constitute a frame of

reference for testing the validity of the plan of evaluation.

Key jobs, in order for their going rates to be used as

effective criteria, must not be in over or under supply in

the labor market in question. If, for example, a job is in

temporary oversupply, the effect would be to drive the wage

rate up. Such a rate would not represent the true value of

that job relative to other jobs over a period of time. On

the other hand, if there is no under or over supply of such

a job, its going rate does reflect inherent job demands.

There is no conflict between the internal consistency of


rates of pay for job demands and the going rates for key

jobs. Consequently, such a job may be considered a key job

for purposes of validation. Furthermore, if a series of such

key job rates is used to establish the wage line, the organ-

ization's wage level will automatically correspond to the

wage level for key jobs in the labor market in question.

From the foregoing discussion concerning key job mar-

ket rates it follows that if all jobs were key jobs there

would be no need for a job evaluation. Under such a condi-

tion no under or over supply would exist for any job. Conse-

quently, each job rate would reflect the inherent demands of

the market. Each job as priced by the market would reflect

the true value of that job relative to all other jobs as evi-

denced by the going rates for such jobs. Thus, since there

would be no unique or non-key jobs,1 there would be no need

for a system designed to adequately price such jobs. Unfor-

tunately, only a relatively few jobs can meet the qualifica-

tions for key jobs. This is particularly true with reference

to the constancy of the job's relative value over a period of

time. Failure on this point alone would disqualify all but a

1Unique jobs are those jobs which are found in the
labor market in question in such few numbers that an adequate
going wage rate for such jobs is unobtainable. In addition,
many such jobs contain unique functions which may not be
found in the labor market in question.


few jobs. As a result, it becomes necessary to establish a

program of job evaluation to effectively price unique, non-

key jobs. The ability of the evaluation plan to accurately

price such non-key jobs is dependent upon the degree of

validity of the plan.

One of the important prerequisites to developing a

valid job evaluation plan is to make certain that the rating

of jobs is reliable. Validity cannot be achieved without

reliability. Reliability of job rating means that consist-

ency in rating has been achieved. Reliability is a measure

of the consistency with which a rater achieves the same re-

sults in rating the same jobs from time to time or the con-

sistency with which other raters using the same system inde-

pendently on the same jobs achieve the same results. If inter-

rater reliability is lacking, and there is no consistency in

the job ratings, it is impossible to determine whether the

system is valid or not. If the plan proves non-valid, the

difficulty might be traced to improper ratings rather than to

improper factor weighting. Such a condition would make it

virtually impossible to assess a plan's validity.

On the other hand, even though a system may have

achieved reliability it should not be inferred that the sys-

tem is also valid. Validity must be achieved in its own

right. Actually, the most important phase of developing and


implementing a program of job evaluation is in testing the

plan for validity. A valid plan is one that evaluates or

rates key jobs in the same relative position as they have

been evaluated by the going rates for such jobs in the labor

market in question. Only by checking on its validity can it

be determined whether the plan in use is "correct" (i.e.,

optimum weighting of factors for purposes of achieving valid


A study of many job evaluation plans currently in

operation suggests little recognition of the importance of

validating the plan. In a sense this lack is understandable

since the process of validation is of relatively recent ori-

gin. Also, there apparently has been little attempt to

propagate the idea. In general, most job evaluation systems

are built upon "authoritative opinion." This constitutes a

rather shaky ground upon which to construct so important a

program as the wage program. Job evaluation, to be effective,

must be based on the principles set forth above. To approach

the problem in a haphazard way negates any value that other-

wise might be obtained from a formal system of valuing jobs.

To attempt to use formal job evaluation without ascertaining

its validity and reliability is tantamount to arbitrarily

establishing wage rates.

Purpose of Study

The primary purpose of this research is to analyze

hospital practice in terms of the concept of job evaluation

as outlined above and concepts as to good practice taken from

a review of the literature in this field. The specific ob-

jectives of the study are as follows:

1. To present the more important contribu-
tions leading to the development of
present day concepts of job evaluation.

2. To ascertain the extent to which hospi-
tals make use of job evaluation as a means
of controlling wage administration.

3. To determine the principal types of
formal job evaluation techniques in use
by the majority of hospitals. Also, to
seek information on which type of eval-
uation system brings the most satisfac-
tory results.

4. To examine in detail the methods of pro-
gram construction and implementation and
to evaluate operational problems involved
in hospital usage of job evaluation.

5. To ascertain the extent to which hospitals
using a qantitative point plan of job
evaluation make use of statistical pro-
cedures in checking on the validity and
reliability of such plans.

6. To determine whether or not a generally
acceptable plan for evaluating jobs might
be established to serve hospitals.


It is hoped that making this information available to

hospital administrators will lead to more adequate and effec-

tive administrative planning in the area of wage and salary


Limitations of Study

This study is based upon empirical data secured

through personal interviews with hospital administrators

and personnel managers and a mailed interview sheet. It was

limited to those hospitals within the continental United

States. However, Federal and State hospitals were excluded

from the study. It was deemed best to eliminate such insti-

tutions from the study in the interest of securing more repm-

sentative data since all Federal government hospitals use the

same evaluation plan and many state plans are patterned after

the Federal government's plan.

The mailed survey was restricted to hospitals with a

bed capacity of 200 or more since it was assumed that larger

institutions would be more likely to use formal job evalua-

tion due to the cost and time involved in establishing such

a program. In the personal survey, no attempt was made to

select hospitals on the basis of size or type of ownership.

However, in view of cost limitations, the personal survey was


restricted to hospitals on the East coast ranging from

Jacksonville, Florida, to New York City and westward to

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

And, finally, the selection of hospitals for inclu-

sion in the survey was not made on a random basis. Conse-

quently, sampling theory was not applicable for purposes of

establishing statistical reliability of predictions. Never-

theless, since 35 per cent of the largest hospitals in the

country responded to the survey, it is felt that valid

generalizations are warranted.

Plan of Organization of Study

Chapter II of this study will be devoted to a histori-

cal review of the major contributions leading to the develop-

ment of present practices in job evaluation. A review of

the evolution of job evaluation will serve to place succed-

ing evaluative comments in proper perspective. The period

covered is from the turn of the century, when job evaluation

was in its formative stages, through the early forties and

the successful attempts by Lawshe and others to elevate the

status of job evaluation through the development of more

simplified and reliable systems, to the contemporary studies

of evaluation techniques. This chapter will seek to establish

the criteria by which actual hospital practice will be judged.


Succeeding chapters are based largely upon the results

of a survey of the practices of hospitals in the use of job

evaluation plans. This survey, which is described in more

detail in Chapter III, was made by visiting 60 hospitals in

seven states and the District of Columbia and through a

questionnaire mailed to approximately 800 hospitals through-

out the country. The survey attempted to determine the use

hospitals have made of job evaluation and the extent to which

hospitals have undertaken to incorporate the techniques of

validation, simplification and reliability determination in

their job evaluation plans. Chapter III outlines the method-

ology employed in undertaking the survey and records the com-

plete results of both the personal visits and mailed


Chapter IV is devoted principally to a discussion of

the major components necessary in a hospital job evaluation

program. Based upon information drawn from personal contacts

with hospital administrators and personnel directors, as well

as from survey results, a general plan for evaluating hospital

jobs is proposed. Since individual hospitals engage in essn-

tially the same functional activities and since the problems

relating to job interrelationships within the hospital are

similar, development of such a plan is realistic. This

chapter draws heavily upon the actual survey in developing


such individual topics as: (a) administrative decisions in

establishing job evaluation in the hospital, (b) preliminary

planning and development of the evaluation program: (c) or-

ganizing and implementing the project, and (d) maintaining

control over the newly established plan.




Early Attempts at Development and Use of Job Evaluation
as a Tool in Wage Administration

Statement of the problem of equitable wage determination

Job evaluation is not new. There has always been an

informal rating of jobs even though the differentiation might

have been nothing more than a recognition of the distinction

between the skilled craftsman and the common laborer. How-

ever, with the birth of the Industrial Revolution and its

concept of mass production, the historical craft wage struc-

ture became obsolete. The development of many new and spe-

cialized skills resulting from the division of labor and the

introduction, for the first time, of many new jobs with no

traditional rate structure associated with them necessitated

the institution of more analytical job rating techniques.

Acceptable means of evaluating jobs on a relative basis were

slow in developing. However, a new management technique is

seldom contrived instantaneously, rather it tends to evolve



with much trial and error over a period of time. So it was

with job evaluation. The growing complexity of the industrial

situation compelled management to direct its attention to the

problem of achieving a more rational approach to ascertaining

job requirements and relationships.

Laying the groundwork for systematic Job measurement

Of the early pioneers in the field of management, per-

haps Frederick W. Taylor contributed more toward the develop-

ment of an analytical approach to the job than any other per-

son. Although he did not specifically discuss the idea of

job evaluation as such, he "is credited as being a pioneer in

the job evaluation movement."l Taylor and his system of sci-

entific management introduced the principle of determining

wages by analysis of the work to be accomplished. Primarily,

the analysis consisted of a sequential listing of the elements

needed for production and the amount of time necessary for

each element or step in order that a standard time for the

production of a single unit might be developed. Although

Taylor and his contemporaries seemed to be more interested in

the development of more efficient techniques of production

1Charles W. Brennan, Wage Administration (Homewood,
Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1959), p. 54.


and reduction in unit costs, "his first premise was that no

wage plan was equitable either to men or to management unless

it was based upon accurate knowledge."l Job knowledge is, of

course, fundamental to the establishment of any system of

evaluating jobs for purposes of equitable wage apportionment.

Taylor, himself, in cognizance of Job variance and the need

for proper job classification stated: "Maximum prosperity

for each employee means not only higher wages than are usu-

ally received by men of his class, but, of more importance, it

also means the development of each man to his state of maximum

efficiency, so that he may be able to do...the highest grade

of work for which his natural abilities fit him, and it

further means giving him...this class of work to do."2 Com-

plementing his recognition of fundamental differences in work

classifications, Taylor apparently comprehended management's

responsibility in establishing necessary requisites for such

classes. Filipetti, in discussing this facet of Taylor's

work, contended that "the important or fundamental element

beneath the case is that emphasis was placed upon the fact

1William R. Spriegel and Richard H. Lansburgh,
Industrial Management (5th ed. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., 1955), p. 26.

2Frederick W. Taylor, The Principles of Scientific
Management (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1911), p. 9.


that different jobs require different qualities...and that

it is the function of management to determine these job re-


There seems to be little question that the estab-

lishment of a system of wages by analysis of the work per-

formed was at least a step forward from the establishment of

wages solely by fiat, individual bargaining or custom. Under

such conditions management occupied a position of economic

advantage. There was, however, recognition that Taylor had

no more than scratched the surface of the wage problem. Much

remained to be accomplished in the area of equitable wage

administration. In 1915, Robert F. Hoxie, Professor of Polit-

ical Economy at the University of Chicago, conducted a study

of shops employing the concept of scientific management for

the United States Commission on Industrial Relations. Hoxie

criticized the scientific approach to establishing the base

rate as follows:

If it is to be scientific and just according
to our commonly accepted standards of judgment
*..the wage must reward all workers in exact
proportion to the skill and energy which they
expend....Viewed in this light, one will seek
in vain for any scientific methods devised or

1George Filipetti, Industrial Management in Transi-
tion (Rev. ed.; Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, 1953),
pp. 22-23.


employed by scientific management for the
determination of the base rate....It was sug-
gested by some that the relative skill and
energy employed in closely allied trades
could be determined by comparative elementary
analysis of the movements involved. But those
who held to this view were forced to admit
that where skill is a vital factor this method
breaks down, and there is no scientific mode of
comparison between different trades where the
expenditure of effort differs qualitatively.1

The scientific approach to the wage problem, as out-

lined by Taylor, was still primarily concerned with a more

systematic measure of the quantitative aspects of the job.

This was an important stride forward; however, there remained

the problem of measuring the more qualitative facets of the

job. Edward D. Jones, Professor of Commerce and Industry at

the University of Michigan, recognized the value of the qual-

itative factors in any attempt at establishing a system for

evaluating jobs as a prerequisite to an equitable solution of

the wage problem. As early as 1916 he suggested:

There is still another reason why the labor
market achieves only a bungling approximation
to a true equilibrium, and this is that in any
specific case the exact labor capacity offered
is.uncertain...there is little knowledge as to
neatness, accuracy, dexterity, speed, and de-
pendability; as to education, general and voca-
tional, and experience in the craft....Every-
where there is lack of accurate calculation of

Robert F. Hoxie, Scientific Management and Labor
(New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1921). p. 63.


these essential factors, and lack of standardi-
zation of them. With such a mass of indeter-
minate elements, the wage setting process can
hardly be other than a wrangle....Because of
such conditions great inequalities in wage
rates exist without adequate reason; neither
party to a wage transaction can be sure it has
received justice....In the interest of a fair
wage it is greatly to be desired that science
should be applied to the measurement of these
indeterminate or crudely calculated factors
of the labor problem.1

Professor Jones' accurate statement of the need for

more specific measurement of the more intangible facets of

the job seemed to be prophetic in nature. However, his

writing does not give any indication of the development of

a plan for measurement or use of the factors which he con-

sidered as important in constructing a stable wage plan.

Contributions to a more systematic means of job measurement

Even though Frederick Taylor and his contemporaries

brought to light the problem of inadequate job rating and

laid the groundwork for a more rational approach to the

problem, major progress was slow in materializing. Neverthe-

less, evidence of procedural change became apparent as early

as 1910. The principal areas of advancement in job evaluation

1Edward D. Jones, The Administration of Industrial
Enterprises (Italics supplied.) (New York: Longmans, Green
and Company, 1916), pp. 226-228.

techniques will be discussed under the following topical


1. Development of more complete job

2. Use of committees in the evaluation

3. Use of weighted separate jobfactors.

4. Use of key or benchmark jobs.

5. Development of a simplified system of
evaluating jobs.

6. Studies in reliability of the evaluation

7. Studies in validity of the evaluation

Development of more complete job information. One

of the more noteworthy examples of early development in the

area of job evaluation was the work accomplished by the Chi-

cago Civil Service Commission in requiring more adequate job

studies and descriptions.1 As early as 1910 the Commission

IFor example, the Commission required "detailed facts
with regard to the duties attached to each individual posi-
tion with regard to its place in the organization unit in
which it occurs." In addition, written statements were re-
quired stating the minimum qualifications necessary to suc-
cessfully perform the duties of the position. Also, standard-
ized position titles suggestive of the duties attached to the
positions were established. For a complete report of the
Commission's total approach to job studies see Fred Telford,
"The Classification and Salary Standardization Movement in the
Public Service," Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, CXIII (May, 1924), p. 207.


had developed a formal plan for classifying positions in

various units of the city government. Although the program

was somewhat subjective in nature, it represented a vast im-

provement over the complete lack of standardization prior to

its inception. According to Lytle, prior to the development

of the Chicago Civil Service Commission's approach to job

analysis, primary emphasis was placed on improvement of job

methods through job study. The term job study or job analysJs

as used by industrial engineers was not adequately differen-

tiated from the term as used at a later period by personnel

men. Subsequent to the Commission's establishment of job

analysis as a determination of the component elements of a

job, a great deal of attention was focused on this new usage

of the job study.

The need for improvement in the area of evaluating

jobs was exposed rather unexpectedly. Earlier the Commission

was attempting to bring about improvements in areas other than

job evaluation in several city departments. To its dismay, it

discovered the impossibility of accomplishing desired action

due to the fact that job titles in use were frequently not

Charles P. Messick, "Development and Administration
of Classification and Compensation Plans in New Jersey,"
Annals of the American lademy of Political and Social Science,
CXIII (May, 1924), p. 246.


descriptive and in many cases were actually misleading. Fur-

ther checking on the situation revealed that many employees

did not possess the qualifications necessary for performing

the duties of the positions they were holding and that com-

pensation in many cases bore little or no relationship either

to the work performed or the title of the job.

The Commission took action which resulted in what one

author flatly described as "the first duties classification

and the first standardized compensation plan based on a

duties classification in this country."l According to

Charles Lytle, the major contribution made by the Commission's

work lay in the area of more complete job information. He

stated: "Modern job analysis was started in 1909 by a re-

quirement of the Civil Service Commission of Chicago and the

subsequent work of the Commonwealth Edison Company of that

city."2 Lytle further expressed the opinion that "inspira-

tion for this step came from Taylor's practices, his further

specialization of jobs and his science of work studies."3

iTelford, op. cit., p. 207.

2Charles W. Lytle, Job Evaluation Methods (2nd ed.;
New York: Ronald Press Company, 1954), p. 11.



Use of committees in evaluating jobs. One of the

earliest references to the use of a committee in rating and

classifying jobs was made by W. D. Stearns, secretary of

the Occupations and Rates Committee of the Westinghouse

Electric and Manufacturing Company, in 1919.1 The evalua-

tion process as developed was simple. It represented nothing

more than a ranking and classification of jobs based on sev-

eral factors. However, the importance of committee action was

clearly stipulated. The committee on Occupations and Rates

was responsible for seeing that jobs were properly classified

and proper wage rates set. In the actual classification

process, jobs were sorted into one of five groups represent-

ing the different classifications. If there was any doubt

about a particular classification, the card was set aside for

further consideration by the committee. In the opinion of

Stearns, it was self-evident that group judgment was superior

to individual classification, especially where difficulty

might be encountered in properly rating a particular job.

Even though Stearns had earlier made use of the com-

mittee in classifying jobs, Eugene J. Benge was one of the

first to call particular attention to the value of using a

1W. D. Stearns, "Placing the Right Man on the Right
Job," Machinery, XXVI, No. 2 (October, 1919), p. 38.


committee for rating purposes.1 From his writings it was

evident to Benge that the use of a job evaluation committee

and its "pooled" judgment was superior to the generally

accepted idea of individual rating of job worth. It was his

opinion that minor variations resulting from individual dif-

ferences might be modified by a simple averaging process in

terms of both individual scores and time and that the com-

mittee with its collective judgment was indispensable to the

proper functioning of an evaluation plan. Indeed the com-

mittee was an important step in the right direction in help-

ing to modify the vicissitudes of human judgment. However,

with the development of validity and reliability checks the

committee was no longer necessary, at least as a check on

individual judgment. Under a properly validated system con-

sistently used in the proper manner, individual or collective

judgment is of no consequence in trying to develop a "correct"

plan. Even so, the committee is still frequently used as a

means of permitting supervisory participation in an effort to

gain support for the job evaluation program as well as to

assist in securing valid ratings through information gained

by committee investigation and discussion.

1Eugene J. Benge, "Gauging the Job's Worth, Part I,
Industrial Relations, III (February, 1932), p. 66.

Use of weighted separate characteristics. Based on a

survey of literature in the field of management, it is evi-

dent that several types of subjective ranking and classifica-

tion plans for evaluating the relative worth of jobs had

been developed and a considerable amount of thought had been

given by writers in the field of management to the problem

of Job evaluation prior to 1925. However, Merrill Lott is

generally credited with the creation and promulgation of the

first thorough-going plan for evaluating jobs by weighting

separate factors. In 1925, he first published a description

of the method involved in the use of his point rating system

in the Journal of Manufacturing Industries.2 Because of its

wide acclaim by readers of the article, he subsequently pub-

lished the material in more detail in book form. Comparison

of his original system of evaluating jobs with subsequent

point systems indicates that the majority of the latter plans

partake of the basic elements of the original, although some

modifications have taken place. The work accomplished by

Lott opened the door to general development and use of job

evaluation as a means of eliminating or at least minimizing

many existing wage and salary difficulties.

1Lytle, op. cit., p. 57.

2Merrill R. Lott, Wage Scales and Job Evaluation
(New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1926), p. vii.


Since previous evaluation systems had considered both

the development of work requirements through job analysis and

specifications and a general analysis of factors influencing

the worth of the job, the primary contribution of Lott was

his recognition of the degree of difference between factors

and the establishment of weights to distinguish between the

relative importance of the various factors.1

Prior to Lott's time the straight point method was

the only type of point plan in usage. The idea that some

factors were much more important than others was completely

ignored. Consequently, in the final analysis, some factors

were overvalued while others were undervalued. Lott's

weighted point plan sought to remedy this deficiency. In

addition, Lott's plan established different degree values as

a means of differentiating between different levels or

degrees of each factor. The straight point plan also estab-

lished degrees; however, no attempt was made to adequately

differentiate between the initial degree and the top degree.

For example, degree number one was normally assigned a value

of zero or one and degree five a value of four or five. Ob-

viously, where a great difference existed between levels of

job difficulty, the point difference between the first degree

lBenge, op. cit., Part II, p. 117.


and the top degree was not adequate to properly differentiate

job values. Such subjectiveness in both factors and degrees

led to an excessive amount of arbitrariness in rating jobs.

Lott's decision to weight factors according to their relative

importance and to differentiate degree values was a long

stride forward in the development of accurate job rating.

Although Lott did not give evidence of recognizing the fact,

his improvement in the point rating plan made possible the

later development of the concept of validity. Since factors

do differ in importance as they contribute to job worth, in

order to assure the validity of any pdnt plan of evaluation,

cognizance must be taken of this difference. Thus Lott's

major contribution in the form of separate weighted char-

acteristics was a necessary forerunner to developing a valid

job evaluation system.

Use of key or bench-mark jobs in rating. In 1926,

Eugene J. Benge, under the sponsorship of Thomas E. Mitten

of the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company developed an eval-

uation plan which was destined to become the forerunner of

the factor comparison system of evaluating jobs.1 The

IEugene J. Benge, Samuel L. H. Burk, and Edward N.
Hay, Manual of Job Evaluation (New York: Harper and Bros.,
1941), pp. ix-x.


principal difference between Benge's plan and-present day

factor comparison plans lies in the development of wage rates

for key jobs. In the earlier plan, internal rates for key

jobs which were agreed upon as fair by the evaluation com-

mittee were apportioned among the factors. At present, ex-

ternal going rates for key jobs are apportioned among

factors. The difference is significant since the latter

system at least offers an independent frame of reference

upon which the company's wage scale is based.

In a series of articles entitled "Gauging the Job's

Worth," Benge set forth the general principles involved in

his establishment of an effective program of job evaluation

based on a comparison of job factors. One of the most im-

portant facets of the new plan involved the use of key or

bench-mark jobs against which less well-known jobs in the

organization could be compared. Lytle described this use of

multiple key jobs for comparison purposes as the "surest

virture" of Benge's plan.2 In his original plan, ten bench-

mark jobs, common to several departments, were selected for

1The principal aspects of the following discussion
were drawn from Benge's article "Gauging the Job's Worth"
Parts I, II and III, Industrial Relations, III (February,
March and April, 1932), pp. 66-69, 117-120 and 177-180,

2Lytle, op. cit., p. 42.


intensive analysis; however, so much emphasis was placed

upon these key or bench-mark jobs as criteria for job com-

parison that Benge later decided to increase the number from

the original ten to between fifteen and twenty-five.1

These key jobs as developed by Benge were essentially

internal bench-mark jobs and therefore did not carry the same

connotation that is placed upon the concept of key jobs at

present. Many of the characteristics required of a key job

were the same;2 however, the most important requirement, that

there be no under or over supply of such jobs in the labor

market in question, was missing in the original interpreta-

tion of what constituted a key job. This particular require-

ment is necessary if the key jobs selected are to reflect the

inherent demands of the labor market in question in the devel-

opment of an internally equitable wage plan.

Although Benge, in his concept of key jobs, failed

to recognize this most important function (that of using key

jobs as external validating criteria), his idea at least

pointed up the usefulness of key jobs in inter-job comparison

and subsequent development of an acceptable wage plan.

1Benge, Burk and Hay, op. cit., p. 104.

2See Chapter IV for a complete description of the
necessary characteristicss of a key job.

Development of a simplified system of evaluating jobs.

Beginning with Lott's point plan, most of the formal evalua-

tion systems made use of from fifteen to twenty-five factors

in rating jobs. As a matter of fact, as many as forty-two

factors were found in use in some of the early plans.1 Con-

trary to this general trend, Eugene J. Benge established his

factor comparison plan for evaluating jobs using only five

separate factors.2 In selecting factors for comparison pur-

poses, Benge and his staff of job analysts secured job

descriptions for several hundred jobs throughout the plant.

Analyzing these descriptions, the group was able to observe

over fifty different factors not all of which were present

in all jobs, however. Further study revealed that all of

these factors could be classified under one or the other of

five major characteristics; mental effort, skill, physical

effort, responsibility and working conditions. These factors

became the basic comparison items upon which the whole system

functioned. Benge was one of the first to recognize that a

reduced number of common factors could measure job worth as

1John W. Riegel, Wage Determination (Ann Arbor:
Bureau of Industrial Relations, University of Michigan, 1937),
p. 87.

2Eugene J. Benge, Job Evaluation and Merit Rating
National Foreman's Institute, Inc. (Deep River, Connecticut,
1941), p. 21.


effectively as a much larger number. This emphasis upon a

very few factors as accounting for a major portion of job

variance was in keeping with later research findings. Thus

Benge made a definite contribution in terms of simplifying

the job evaluation program which, in turn, led to substantial

savings in cost, time and effort.

At least two other early authors of job evaluation

plans followed the lead of Benge in the establishment of

evaluation systems using relatively few rating factors. In

1932, D. W. Weed, developed a job evaluation plan using only

six compensatory factors. Shortly thereafter A. W. Bass, Jr.

created a job evaluation plan using a highly restricted

number of factors. It was the opinion of BasF that there

were only three basic factors contributing to job values:

skill, personal characteristics and working conditions. Each

job was rated in comparison with other jobs on these three

basic factors only. These items constitute essentially the

same factors that C. H. Lawshe extracted from a much larger

list of factors as accounting for virtually all of job var-

iance. Each of the above authors logically deduced that

equal results could be obtained with the use of few rather

than many factors. Even so, the decision to use a reduced

number of factors was somewhat subjective and arbitrary.


Little more than fifteen years had elapsed since

Merrill Lott developed the first thoroughgoing plan for

quantitatively evaluating jobs. Several different methods

and approaches to the problem of evaluating jobs had been

developed in the intervening years; however, the rapidity

with which job evaluation emerged as a full-blown tool of

management left little time for needed research. As late as

1950, C. H. Lawshe, Jr. of Purdue University, conceded that

"insofar as extensive use and acceptance are concerned, job

evaluation generally, and point systems specifically, are

relatively new. Much of our experience in their use has been

strictly of the trial-and-error variety....Until recent years

there has been little true research in job evaluation." It

became apparent that without a more objective appraisal of

system development, a situation might well evolve in which

certain rather complicated and involved evaluating systems

dominating the scene might be assumed to be more "scientific,"

and therefore better, solely on the basis of this complexity.

Realization of this possibility, coupled with Dr. Joseph

Tiffin's investigations at Purdue in the area of merit rating

1Joseph M. Dooher and Vivenne Marquis (ed.), The AMA
Handbook of Wage and Salary Administration (New York:
American Management Association, 1950), p. 387.


prompted Lawshe and his associates to undertake a program of

research into the possibility of developing an abbreviated
system for measuring job worth.

As Lawshe studied early job evaluation plans it be-

came apparent that use of such a large number of factors not

only increased the time consumed in rating jobs, thereby

raising costs, but also contributed to complexity of the

system, thereby hampering understanding and acceptance. Re-

search commenced in an effort to determine whether a more

simplified system of job evaluation was practical. It did

not take researchers long to ascertain the fact that certain

items tended to vary together. As an example, jobs that were

rated high on the factor "education" tended to be rated high

on "experience." Jobs which were rated low on the one tended

to be rated low on the other. Because of this high correla-

tion between many of the items, the hypothesis was set forth

that some few primary factors existed which were common to

each of the items, but which were independent of one another.2

The problem was to isolate these primary factors and identify


1Information contained in a letter from C. H. Lawshe,
Jr. to the writer, dated July 29, 1960.

2C. H. Lawshe, Jr., "Toward Simplified Job Evalua-
tion," Personnel, XXII, No. 3 (November 1945), pp. 155-157.


At this point, Lawshe turned to a statistical technique,

already in use in psychological research, commonly known as

"factor analysis." Previous investigations had proven con-

clusively that, as far as tests were concerned, "no test

constituted an unadulterated measure of any primary ability

or trait" since all tests "are contaminated to some extent

with variances in other primary traits or characteristics."I

It was Lawshe's opinion that much the same circumstance

surrounded the use of a large number of job rating items.

Many items were apparently not mutually exclusive in measur-

ing the trait they purported to measure. "Factor analysis"

was advanced as a means of ascertaining which variables

tended to fluctuate together in measuring the same basic

trait. Lawshe concluded that essentially the same technique

could be applied to an analysis of factors used in rating jobs

to determine whether certain items did tend to "cluster" or

vary together thereby measuring the same basic job element.

Subsequent research proved the soundness of his assumption.

The logic of this concept, at least from the stand-

point of methodology, was sound. If it could be demonstrated

that certain items tend to "cluster" with a high coefficient

1J. P. Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology
and Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1942), p. 285.


of correlation between item ratings, then the value of any

item in the cluster could be computed from the value of any

other item. If a high degree of correlation existed between

several of the individual items, it could further be assumed

that only a relatively small number of primary factors or

"clusters" existed and that the actual items making up the

individual "clusters" represented various shadings of the.

primary factor. Provided these primary factors could be iso-

lated, it would be possible to evaluate the job, using only

three or, at most, four factors instead of ten or fifteen.

The additional amount of time and effort necessitated by the

use of the larger number of rating factors could be consider-

ably reduced.

With these ideas in mind, Lawshe and G. A. Satter,

representing the Division of Education and Applied Psychology

at Purdue University, undertook in 1943, a detailed statisti-

cal study of the National Electrical Manufacturers Associa-

tion's point system of job evaluation as applied in three sep-

arate industrial plants. The avowed objectives of this study

were to try to identify the primary factors operating in each

plant, and to ascertain the extent of item "clustering"

around these primary factors.

IC. H. Lawshe, Jr. and G. A. Satter, "Studies in Job
Evaluation I: Factor Analysis of Point Ratings for Hourly-
Paid Jobs in Three Industrial Plants, Journal of Applied
Psychology, XXVIII, No. 3 (June 1944), pp. 184-198.


Factor analysis was applied to the eleven factor NEMA

plan1 used in each of the three plants. Two primary factors

were extracted from plants A and B and four from plant C.2

In effect, it was found that two basic factors (rather than

11) were accounting for most of the varkbility in total point

ratings in the first two plants. Likewise, four basic factors

(rather than 11) were accounting for most of the variability

in total point ratings in the third plant. These results

were indeed significant in terms of potential reduction in

the cost and effort involved in the use of job evaluation.

Furthermore, the rating procedure was considerably simpli-

fied. Lawshe's research denied the premise that in order to

adequately measure job worth in these plants, factors would

have to be fractionated to include eleven individual items.

After the original study was made, Lawshe sought to

determine whether the abbreviated system as developed would

achieve results comparable to results originally achieved

See David W. Belcher, Wage and Salary Administration
(Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955), pp.
220-221, for a listing of the factors involved.

2The primary factors in plants A and B were "skill
demands" and "job characteristics-general." In plant C,
two additional primary factors were found: "Job character-
istics-hazardous" and "attention demands." This fourth
factor apparently arose from the great deal of visual and
mental attention required in inspection and machine attend-
ing in Plant C.


through use of the elongated system.1 The criterion in this

instance was the number of jobs shifted in terms of pay

rates under the abbreviated system.

In order to select individual items from the clusters2

with which to predict, the Wherry-Doolittle shrinkage selec-

tion method was applied and the first three items were iden-

tified for each of the three plants. Using data obtained in

each plant, a multiple regression equation was developed for

purposes of predicting total point ratings using the simpli-

fied system. Results were surprising. Of the 247 jobs,

whose total points were computed from the estimating equa-

tion, 62 per cent (153.jobs) remained in the same labor

grade, 37.2 per cent (92 jobs) were displaced by one labor

grade and 0.8 per cent (2 jobs) were displaced by two labor

grades. More importantly, however, when the data were fur-

ther analyzed on the basis of number of points deviation

from the original total point rating, only seven jobs were

found to deviate from the original rating by more than

twenty-two points which represented the range of points

1C. H. Lawshe, Jr., "Studies in Job Evaluation II:
The Adequacy of Abbreviated Point Ratings for Hourly-Paid
Jobs in Three Industrial Plants," Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, XXIX, No. 3 (June, 1945), pp. 177-184.

primary factors were developed from item clustering.


within labor grades. Even this difference was minimized,

from the point of view of salary, since an overlap existed

in progressive grades so that the same salary was applicable

in several grades. To all intents and purposes the research

results had proven rather conclusively that a simplified

system was practical, at least from the standpoint of


Since the original study was based on hourly paid

jobs in three industrial plants, Lawshe and an associate,

A. A. Males]i, in 1946, decided to test the simplified sys-

tem on salaried jobs.2 The objectives were the same as for

the initial study and identical statistical methods were

applied. Since the work involved circumstances different

from those in the plant, a different set of items was devel-

oped for use in rating jobs. Included were several items,

such as confidential data, scope and character of supervis-

ion, and complexity of duties, not applicable in the orig-

inal plan; however, as in the original there were eleven

items with varying degrees of complexity. Practically the

IC. H. Lawshe, Jr., "Studies in Job Evaluation II,:
op. cit., pp. 180-181.

2C. H. Lawshe, Jr. and A. A. Maleski, "Studies in Job
Evaluation III: An analysis of Point Ratings for Salary-
Paid Jobs in an Industrial Plant," Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, XXX, No. 2 (April 1946), pp. 117-128.


same results occurred. In this instance three primary

factors were again identified, namely skill demands, super-

visory demands and job characteristics. As might be expected

in jobs of this nature, a heavy loading was found in the

items relating to necessary supervision. As in the three

original plants, the factor "skill demands" continued to

account for most of the variance in total points.

In the same year, two other studies of the same

nature were conducted: the first, a study of hourly-paid jobs

in a different plant using a point rating system different

from the NEMA system and, the second, an analysis of the

factor comparison system as it functioned in a paper mill.2

As in previous research, practically identical results were


In each of the aforementioned research studies, a

multiple regression formula was developed and estimated total

IC. H. Lawshe, Jr. and S. L. Alessi, "Studies in Jo
Evaluation IV: Analysis of Another Point Rating Scale for
Hourly-Paid Jobs and the Adequacy of an Abbreviated Scale,"
Journal of Applied Psychology, XXX, No. 4 (August 1946),
pp. 310-319.

2C. H. Lawshe, Jr. and R. F. Wilson, "Studies in Job
Evaluation V: An analysis of the Factor Comparison System As
it Functions in a Paper Mill," Journal of Applied Psychology,
XXX, No. 5 (October 1946), pp. 426-434.


point values for all jobs in each organization were computed.

As in the first study, results were exceptionally good in

terms of labor grade displacement. Table 1 summarizes these




Plant Co. System Type of Wage Agreement

A NEMA Hourly 97% within 22 points
B NEMA Hourly 91% within 22 points
C NEMA Hourly 100% within 22 points
A NEMA Salary 86% within 30 points
D System "X" Salary 94% within 5 cents
E Factor Comparison Salary 96% within 5 cents

Source: Dooher and Marquis, op, cit., p. 391.

aHad a salary grade range of 30 points rather than
22 points.

bDid not employ labor grade approach but conversions
made directly from points to cents per hour.

At about the same time, R. C. Rogers of the De Laval

Steam Turbine Company in Trenton, New Jersey, examined two

other point rating plans employed in a metal machining in-

dustry (one for hourly paid jobs and the other for salaried

jobs) for purposes of determining the effectiveness of the two

systems as measuring instruments. The same statistical


approach was used and essentially the same results were

achieved as by Lawshe's group. As Rogers stated the case:

"The results of this study...emphasize the fact that many of

the principles and techniques of scientific measurement have

been neglected in the construction and evaluation of these

plans. As a result, many of the elaborate multifactored

systems...contain a number of components which could be

dropped from the battery without significantly affecting the

accuracy of the final evaluation."l

Underlying the point and factor comparison systems

of job evaluation are certain assumptions which the foregoing

research results prove untenable. In the first place, most

job evaluation systems assume that each factor or item used

in the plan measures some specific aspect of job worth and

that each is capable of independent evaluation. Again, each

factor in the plan is assumed to be properly weighted in

terms of its particular contribution to total worth. It was

clearly demonstrated in each of the research projects dis-

cussed that numerous individual items were being used in

rating jobs which contributed little or nothing to the dis-

criminating ability of the system. As a matter of fact, in

IR. C. Rogers, "An Analysis of Two Point Rating Job
Evaluation Plans," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXX, No. 2
(December 1947), p. 584.


certain cases, individual items were weighted rather heavily

in determining total job worth when, in effect, such items

were of little or no consequence in providing unique measures.

Such an approach distorted the relative importance that the

various items actually had in determining the final rating

and, consequently, the salary structure.1 Reliance on human

judgment in developing rating factors tended to increase the

complexity of the system without increasing its effectiveness,

In addition, the reliability2 of job evaluation systems was

thrown open to question as a result of these studies since

it became apparent that the minute fractionation of factors

evidently made for greater discrepancies between raters. It

became of practical importance that existing plans be sub-

jected to closer scrutiny making use of quantitative analytical

measures available.

In terms of methodology, there has been little crit-

icism of the findings of Lawshe and others. Other research

1Lawshe's system of factor selection still did not
achieve a means of determining what the valid weighting of
factors should be for any given plan.

2Reliability of job evaluation refers to the con-
sistency with which raters using the same system achieve
the same results from time to time, or the consistency with
which other raters using the same system independently on
the same jobs come up with the same results.


groups, in fact, have developed similar results. How-

ever, in the realm of human relations as it bears upon

practical application, the simplified system has been crit-

icized rather severely.

One of the basic problems in using a simplified

system relates to the practical difficulty of convincing

employees and supervisors of the adequacy of such a plan.

It is difficult for an employee to see how a rating plan

using only three or four factors can adequately value his

job. Selling the standard type of job evaluation plan is

difficult enough even under the best of circumstances. The

difficulty of selling an abbreviated system to supervisors

and employees is multiplied manyfold. Furthermore, use of

a simplified system will lead to difficulty unless the rating

committee is most careful to detect inadequate coverage of any

of the jobs. This involves an intensive, systematic

1For additional research backing up Lawshe's pro-
posals see Allen H. Howard and H. G. Schutz, "A Factor
Analysis of a Salary Job Evaluation Plan," Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, XXXVI, No. 4 (August 1952), pp. 243-246;
John A. Oliver and Alexander Winn, "An Abbreviated Job Eval-
uation Plan for Salaried Personnel," Personnel, XXVIII, No.
3 (November 1951), pp. 225-229; David J. Chesler, "Reliabil-
ity of Abbreviated Job Evaluation Scales," Journal of Applied
Psychology, XXXII, No. 6 (December 1948), pp. 622-630;
Donald L. Grant, "An Analysis of a Point Rating Job Evalua-
tion Plan," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXV, No. 4
(August 1951), pp. 236-240.


orientation and training of raters on the philosophy and use

of the abbreviated system.

Commenting on Lawshe's research leading to the devel-

opment of a simplified system of job evaluation, A. L. Kress,

author of the NEMA plan, which was the subject of Lawshe's

investigations, made the following comment:

You state that job evaluation plans do not
need eleven factors and specifically refer to
the NEMA-Metal Trades Plan. That plan is now
eleven years old. It is undoubtedly the most
widely used of any single job rating plan.
There has been a definite reluctance to re-
vise the plan in any way in that time; first,
because of the large number of installations
and second, to avoid any criticism on the
part of unions that the "yard stick" was being
changed. In the Metal Trades Association,
the plan is tied into its comprehensive pro-
gram of area surveys. It would be inadvisable
to change the factors even if Lawshe's con-
clusions were accepted. I do not question
his statistical analyses. I do question the
wisdom of limiting the factors, as he sug-
gests, for practical use.

It is reiterated that criticism has been leveled

only at the advisability of using fewer factors from the

human relations viewpoint and not from the standpoint of

mechanics. These criticisms, however, seem to offer little

more than opinions and lose some of their luster when it is

remembered that most factor comparison plans have been

1"Job Evaluation Discussion," Personnel Journal,
XXVII, No. 2 (June 1948), p. 67.


successfully using only five factors over an extended number

of years. Lawshe, however, recognized the possible limita-

tions imposed by the human element as he clearly stated

It is realized that frequently it is de-
sirable to use items possessing what might
be termed "face validity" in spite of the
fact that such items contribute nothing
additional to the scale. That is, if super-
visors and employees believe that a certain
element is important and are agreed that it
should be included, it may be highly desir-
able that it be included for policy reasons
even though it may be statist call shown
that its contribution is nil.

Lawshe hastens to add that it is quite conceivable

that to attempt too fine a delineation between items which

ostensibly measure the same basic job element might well de-

tract from the reliability and validity of the scale. For

this reason, utmost caution should be used in factor selection.

If an administrative decision is made to use an

abbreviated system, it would be wise to start the program

using a standard plan of job evaluation. The standard plan

should be validated and used to rate all unique, uncheckable

jobs. Complete familiarity with the plan and its capabilities

should be had by the rating committee. After a period of

1C. H. Lawshe, Jr., Edward Dudek, and R. F. Wilson,
"Studies in Job Evaluation VII: Factor Analysis of Two
Point Rating Methods of Job Evaluation," Journal of Applied
Psychology, XXXII, No. 2 (April 1948), pp. 125-126.


successful use of the validated plan, consideration may be

given to simplifying said plan through the use of factor

analysis. Again the plan should be checked to ascertain

whether ratings achieved under the abbreviated system are

valid. If so, the principal problem remaining is to sell

the program. In this case the selling job should not be so

difficult of accomplishment since a successful standard has

been developed (the validated standard plan) against which re-

sults under the simplified plan may be compared.

Studies in reliability of the evaluation plan. The

value of a job evaluation system which gives different re-

sults in the hands of equally capable but different raters

or in a re-rating by the same analysts would be open to ser-

ious question. It is equally evident that "if the reliabil-

ity of the ratings is low, resulting differences in point

values or wages may be largely influenced by the correspond-

ing chance variations in the judgments of the raters rather

than by real differences in the system being used."1 Since

the problem of wage and salary differentials depends upon a

proper relating of jobs through job evaluation, a system which

1C. H. Lawshe, Jr. and E. J. McCormick, "What Do You
Buy With the Wage or Salary Dollar," Personnel, XXIV, No. 2
(September 1947), p. 104.


is not wisely conceived and is subject to inconsistencies in

administration might well contribute to job dissatisfaction

and poor morale. Since frequent re-ratings or rating of new

jobs is necessary in maintaining an effective system, reliabil-

ity is imperative. Furthermore, the validity of the job eval-

uation plan is dependent upon the degree of reliability


Since it was necessary to establish some type of

criterion for purposes of comparing results of research into

a simplified system of job rating, the question of reliability

of original rating results (the criterion used) arose immed-

iately. As a matter of fact, Lawshe's second study, in the

series devoted to job evaluation, was partially concerned

with the concept of reliability not only of the newly devel-

oped simplified program but also of original rating results

under the longer NEMA plan.1 However, the first investiga-

tion devoted entirely to the concept of program reliability

was not undertaken until about 1947.2 The objectives of this

research were the determination of: (1) reliability of total

IC. H. Lawshe, Jr., "Studies in Job Evaluation II,"
op. cit., pp. 183-184.

2C. H. Lawshe, Jr. and R. F. Wilson, "Studies in Job
Evaluation VI: The Reliability of Two Point Rating Systems,"
Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXI, No. 4 (August 1947),
pp. 355-365.


point ratings under a system employing a rather large number

of factors; (2) reliability of a simplified system employ-

ing only four factors; and (3) the reliability of each of

the individual factors in both systems.

The NEMA system, made up of eleven factors, each con-

taining five degrees, was again used to represent the extended

plan. A plan involving four factors was developed to repre-

sent the simplified plan. Forty different jobs were chosen.

Job descriptions were adopted from the United States Employ-

ment Service National Job Description Series. Jobs were

chosen which were obviously familiar to most industrial job

analysts. Twenty industrial analysts from different firms

agreed to cooperate in the experiment and, on the basis of

random selection, ten were used to rate jobs using the NEMA

system and ten were to use the abbreviated system. In order

to eliminate as much bias as possible, each rater rated only

twenty of the forty jobs and no two analysts, under either

plan, rated the same twenty jobs. However, raters were paired

off in such a way that each pair rated all the forty jobs but

in a different combination from any other pair. In analyzing

results and computing correlations, each pair represented

"one man." The coefficient of reliability both for total

point ratings and for each item in both systems was determined

on the basis of the average intercorrelation of the ratings of


five men (keeping in mind the fact that each pair was equiva-

lent to one man) on forty jobs. Results from both systems

were not as high as might be expected. However, the very

nature of the controlled conditions precipitated the rather

low intercorrelations. In Lawshe's opinion, the fact that

each of the analysts, working in his own organization, would

tend to view each job in terms of his own situation lessened

the degree of reliability. This, coupled with the fact that

there was no chance for raters to work out verbally any

differences or misunderstandings involving the plan nor was

it possible to give any uniform training or instruction in

the techniques of rating, tended to impair the development of

a true index of reliability.

In order to offset the further criticism that rating

was not normally accomplished by a single individual, the re-

searchers made use of the Spearman-Brown formula to determine

an index of reliability which would result from the pooled

ratings of a committee composed of five members. It was

felt that the reliability of the group ratings more closely

approximated the true situation than did the reliability of

the ratings of a single analyst. The results obtained in both

the first and second instances are shown in the following




"i" "5"
Item against against
"laa n5nb

Simplified System
General schooling .79 .95
Learning period .86 .97
Working conditions .61 .89
Job hazards .51 .84
Total points .89 .98

NEMA System
Education .77 .94
Experience .82 .96
Initiative and ingenuity .78 .95
Physical demand .47 .82
Mental or visual demand .37 .75
Responsibility for equipment .41 .78
Responsibility for material .40 .77
Responsibility fcr safety of
others .54 .85
Responsibility for work of
others .51 .84
Working conditions .54 .85
Unavoidable hazards .34 .72
Total points .77 .94

Source: Lawshe and Wilson, "Studies
VI, op. cit., p. 360.

in Job Evaluation

a"l against 1" means most likely correlation between
ratings of one rater with the rating of one other rater.

b"5 against 5" means most likely correlation between
ratings of five raters with the rating of five other raters.


In viewing these results, several facts became appar-

ent. The first conclusion which may be drawn is that the

abbreviated system as a whole tends to be more reliable than

the elongated system and that five of the item indexes in the

"5 against 5" rating for the NEMA system are lower than the

lowest reliability index in the simplified plan. Secondly,

in view of the fact that previous investigations seemed to

indicate that items making up the factor labeled "skill de-

mands" accounted for practically all the variance in total

points, it is interesting to note that in both systems those

items normally measuring "skill demands" show a relatively

high index of reliability compared to other items. And lastly,

it is to be noted that contrary to the NEMA system, the re-

liability of total points for the simplified system was

greater than any of its individual items. This would seem to

indicate that each component item made some contribution to

total reliability.

An interesting and important result emerged from a

second Lawshe Farbo study. Since the original rating com-

mittee was made up of management, supervisory and union

C. H. Lawshe, Jr. and Patrick C. Farbo, "Studies in
Job Evaluation VIII: The Reliability of an Abbreviated Job
Evaluation System," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXIII,
No. 2 (April, 1949), pp. 158-166.


representatives, comparisons were made of inter-rater reli-

ability between the two management representatives as well as

between the two union representatives. Ratings between the

two management representatives were consistently higher than

for the union men. In addition, the range of variation was

considerably less (see Table 3).



Item Labor- Management-
Labor Management

Total points .83 .94
Learning period .73 .86
General schooling .71 .92
Working conditions .37 .90
Job hazards .68 .80

Source: C. H. Lawshe, Jr., and Patrick Farbo,
"Studies in Job Evaluation VIII," op. cit., p. 162.

Similarly, since two different sets of ratings were

available for each job -- the initial, independent ratings

and the adjusted ratings resulting from conference discussions

-- the relationship between initial ratings as made by manage-

ment, superintendents, and labor and the mode of adjusted

ratings were studied. Once again, management representa-

tives were more consistent in their ratings than were union


members. In addition, the superintendents' ratings were

also more reliable than labors' ratings; however, results

revealed that the ratings of the superintendents were some-

what more accurate than those of the management committee

members. These findings would seem to bear out the conten-

tion that proximity to the jobs under consideration with a

maximum understanding of job content is all important in re-

liability of ratings.

In 1948, research in the area of reliability of job

evaluation was undertaken by Leonard Cohen, lecturer in Psy-

chology at Purdue University.1 A Pittsburgh Machine tool

company, using the same NEMA system, was the subject of inves-

tigation. In this case a re-evaluation of the key job scale

was made by a two man committee made up of the chief indus-

trial engineer and a union representative, both members of

the original rating committee. The index of reliability (co-

efficient of reliability) based on original points assigned

to jobs as compared to re-evaluated points assigned the same

jobs was .949. Cohen hastens to admit, however, that such a

high reliability might be due to the fact that only key jobs

covering a wide range of values were rerated. Had the range

1Leonard Cohen, "More Reliable Job Evaluation,"
Personnel Psychology, I, No. 4 (Winter, 1948), pp. 457-464.


ben narrowed and jobs chosen which were more closely related,

it is quite possible that the coefficient would have been re-

duced considerably.

A second re-evaluation was undertaken by an indus-

trial engineer, foreign to the division, although completely

familiar with the NMTA plan which is quite similar to the NEMA

plan. Using the original job descriptions and personally ob-

serving each job, he rated each key job on all factors. When

these scores were compared to original ratings, the coeffic-

ient was calculated to be .951. According to the author,

these high indices of reliability indicate that "no matter who

performs the job evaluation, so long as he is adequately

trained in the techniques of the job evaluation method, the

resultant hierachy of jobs will be substantially the same."1

A refinement in experimental approach to reliability

determination was brought to light by David J. Chesler of

the Personnel Research Institute at Western Reserve Univer-

sity.2 In undertaking his study, Chesler suggested the seem-

ingly obvious fact that in job evaluation research there are

three variables: (1) the jobs, (2) the raters, and (3) the

Ibid., p. 459.

2j. Chesler, "Reliability and Comparability of Dif-
ferent Job Evaluation Systems," Journal of Applied Psychology
XXXII, No. 5 (October 1948), pp. 465-475.


rating manuals. Therefore, in any thorough experimental pro-

cedure involving the concept of reliability of job rating,

cognizance must be taken of which factors are being held con-

stant and which varied. However, if inter-institution reli-

ability studies are to be undertaken, the problem would be

broadened to include variations in systems used. Chesler's

initial research was directed at ascertaining the extent to

which different job evaluation systems gave the same results

when jobs and raters were held constant and, secondly, deter-

mining the reliability of individual raters when both manual

and jobs were held constant and only raters varied.

In the first research project, descriptions for

thirty-five clerical, supervisory and administrative jobs were

extracted from the files of a large organization. Contrary

to previous investigations where jobs used were hypothetical,

this project involved jobs actually existing in a going con-

cern. They included a wide range of activities typical of

salaried positions in an industrial organization. These jobs

were labeled "standard jobs." In addition, the "standard

manual," to be used in a portion of the research, was devel-

oped by the Personal Research Institute of Western Reserve

University and was typical of many point systems both in terms

of type and number of factors used. Nine organizations lo-

cated in Cleveland, Ohio, participated in the study; the


number of analysts in each company ranged from one to three.

Each was highly trained and possessed a good deal of exper-

ience inasmuch as job evaluation was the individual's primary

responsibility in most cases.

Raters in each of the nine companies were asked to

rate the 30 "standard jobs" on the "standard manual" and then

to rate the same jobs on their own company manual keeping the

two ratings as independent as possible. To further reduce

bias, in use of the "standard manual," points assigned to

factors and degree levels were not made known. Total point

values reported by analysts from the first seven companies

submitting information were then correlated. In no case did

an interrater correlation coefficient fall below .93 with the

highest index of .99 and an average of .97. The "standard

manual" apparently was highly reliable provided, of course,

the criterion of original total scores could be assumed to be

reliable. In Chesler's opinion, the "key to the magnitude of

these coefficients lies in the thoroughness and detailed

nature of the job descriptions and specifications of the

standard jobs."1

Further analysis involving product moment correla-

tions between each factor of the "standard manual" and the

Ibid., p. 471.


total scores for each of the thirty-five "standard jobs" re-

vealed a high degree of individual factor reliability for

all but the factor "pressure of work." The range of vari-

ability ran all the way from .01 for the factors "work ex-

perience" and "getting along with others" to .13 for such

items as "character of supervision received" and "responsi-

bility for accuracy." There was a range of .46 for the

factor "pressure of work"; however, results indicated that

one organization evidently interpreted the factor entirely

differently from the other organizations involved. This dif-

ference in opinion serves to point up the need for inter-

individual communication (a condition purposely lacking in

this project) for purposes of clarifying any such issue.

A final computation, involving intercorrelations among

the job point scores as developed from six different company

manuals, produced coefficients ranging from .89 to .97, rather

high indeed considering the fact that the manuals included

both point rating systems and factor comparison systems.

These high intercorrelations indicated a high degree of

commonalty among different systems. Consequently, according

to Chesler, such a high degree of relationship would seem to

indicate that the type of system used is not so important as


the competency of those who are to analyze and rate the jobs

and the integrity with which the system is installed and


The results of these studies tend to substantiate the

idea that reliability between systems, or more importantly,

between raters, particularly if these raters have not been

thoroughly trained in the rating process, may vary consid-

erably. There is little question that such variation, if not

controlled and eliminated, will create internal disturbances

and ultimately reduce the job evaluation system to a hollow

mockery. The general consensus seems to be, however, that

rating variations can be controlled provided certain preven-

tive measures are taken.

The aforementioned research verifies the need for

undertaking a complete analysis of inter-rater reliability

prior to initiation of the evaluation program. In addition,

since relating of changed jobs as well as rating of new jobs

is a continuing process, a periodic check should be made on

the consistency of ratings. It is virtually impossible to

determine the validity of the plan without proper reliability.

Consequently, the importance of a reliable job evaluation

system cannot be overstated.

1Ibid., p. 473.

Studies in the validity of the evaluation plan. The

most recent research devoted to further refinement of job

evaluation has centered in validation studies. In view of

the importance of validating the rating plan, it appears odd

that the concept of validity was the last to be investigated.

Most of the texts dealing with job evaluation fail to delve

into the subject. Perhaps the general attitude is taken that

"although the various techniques of evaluating the accuracy

of the job evaluation established in a particular company may

be helpful, in the final analysis, statistics are never a

suitable measure of the adequacy of a job evaluation program."2

Actually, statistics are an essential part of the process of

validating the job evaluation program. Since validity re-

quires a determination of the degree of relationship between

the external criteria of market wage rates and internal total

point ratings for key jobs, it is evident that some quanti-

tative measure of correlation is necessary. Furthremore, if

the system in use proves invalid, the only adequate way of

'Validity of the job evaluation plan refers to the
ability of the plan to evaluate key jobs in the same rela-
tive position as they have been evaluated by the going rates
for such jobs in the labor market in question.

2J. L. Otis and Richard H. Leukart, Job Evaluation,
A Basis for Sound Wage Administration (New York: Prentice-
Hall, Inc. 1948), p. 337.


adjusting factor weights in order to achieve validity is

through the use of multiple correlation.1 Consequently, to

condemn the use of statistics as a means of determining the

adequacy of the job evaluation program is tantamount to

destroying the value of the plan itself.

The real measure of usefulness of any job evaluation

plan is the extent to which it is capable of predicting the

proper relative value of intermediate unique or uncheckable

jobs. In determining the prediction potential of the rating

plan, it is first necessary to establish adequate external

criteria against which point ratings for individual key jobs

might be correlated. In the case of job evaluation, the

necessary external criteria are the going wage rates for

selected key jobs in the labor market in question. If the

jobs selected are in actuality key jobs, the going rates for

such jobs in fact reflect the independent judgment of the

market as to their relative worth and presumably reflect in-

herent job demands. Reluctance to accept this fact has per-

haps been the greatest stumbling block to the development of

the concept of validity. In the field of wage administra-

tion, adequate and accurate external criteria are difficult

of attainment. As J. P. Guilford, Professor of Psychology at

1Assuming linearity of the regression (wage) line.


the University of Southern California expressed it: "One of

the most difficult of all aspects of the validity problem is

that of obtaining adequate criteria of what we are measuring."1

Admittedly, there are serious hurdles that must be overcome

if the criteria developed are to be useful; however, these

problems are not impossible of solution.

One of the most serious difficulties in establishing

external criteria is securing and maintaining adequate and

comparable wage information from the local labor market. In

order for the criteria to be of any value, jobs on which com-

munity wage information is sought must be comparable to those

in a given organization. Precise wage information is some-

times difficult to secure. However, adequate wage information

may be obtained provided a reasonable amount of effort is ex-

pended. Information of this nature is particularly useful if

the data are obtained through wage surveys on a cooperative

basis by a group of local concerns. It is most essential that

obtained wage data show stability of key job relationships

over a period of time. Only under such conditions can the

data be considered to reflect inherent job demands and, there-

fore, be useful as external criteria in the validity process.

1J. P. Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology
and Education (3rd ed.: New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc., 1956), p. 463.


One of the first realistic and adequate methods of

testing for the validity of the job evaluation plan was devel-

oped by Bernard H. Fitzpatrick. While undertaking rate sur-

vey activities for the Commerce and Industry Association of
New York, Fitzpatrick attempted to establish some means of

checking on both the stability of key job relationships over

a period of time and the validity of the job rating plan. For

a four year period, during which time he was in charge of the

rate surveys, Fitzpatrick was impressed with the extent to

which certain job rate relationships remained relatively un-

changed over a period of time. This relationships held true

even though the absolute rate for individual jobs varied con-

siderably. From the rate information collected, a "Relative

Job Value Scale" for 57 clerical jobs was developed. Fitz-

patrick cautioned that such a relative scale would be of

value only if established from wage information collected

within the local labor market; consequently the scale as

iBernard H. Fitzpatrick, "An Objective Test of Job
Evaluation Validity," Personnel Journal, XXVIII, No. 4
(September 1949), pp. 128-132.

2From a telephone conversation between the writer and
Mr. Fitzpatrick on August 23, 1960. Mr. Fitzpatrick is now
an industrial relations lawyer associated with the firm of
Butler, Fitzpatrick, De Sio and Keating in New York City.

3Fitzpatrick, op. cit., p. 131.


presented would be of value only in New York City, where the

wage rates were gathered. This, of course, would not limit

the general application of the idea.

The basis for Fitzpatrick's hypothesis concerning the

constant relationship between certain types of jobs rested on

the statistical concept of large numbers. As he explained

the idea: "Since unique circumstances of particular employees

and particular companies have canceled each-other, the resi-

due, the constant ratio, represents the objective judgment

of the employment market on the relative worth of the jobs."

In addition, such relative rates presumable reflect inherent

job demands.

These constant ratios represented the external cri-

teria so necessary in validating the job rating plan and,

consequently, constituted an important support for his devel-

opment of the concept of validity. It is evident that the

author recognized the proper usage of the established criteria

for he states: "If a company evaluates its clerical jobs and

the ratios of the evaluations accord with the ratios between

scale points for identical jobs in the R.J.V. Scale, the

evaluation is a proper one as to those jobs... also the

particular plan as a whole is proper, and the intermediate

uncheckable jobs have probably been properly rated."2

I1bid., p. 129. 2Ibid.


Fitzpatrick was also aware of the difficulties that

might be encountered if the content was not uniform between

the job representing the general market rate and the same

job within the organization. Any sizeable difference that

might exist would negate the value of the external criteria.

As a measure of possible variation in job definitions, Fitz-

patrick used the dispersion of reported rates for the job. He

theorized that the less definable the job and the more subject

the job was to variation in duties, the wider the range of

rates would be. From the resultant dispersion was developed

an ascending and descending cumulative frequency curve (an

Ogive Rating Scale). The area under this curve was then com-

pared to the area enclosed by the cumulative frequencies of

the normal probability curve. If there were little or no

variations in reported rates the distribution would appear

as a point within the probability curve. On the other hand,

a rate distribution falling within the probability curve would

constitute a value of 1.00 or less. A dispersion of rates

falling outside the probability curve would appear as a mixed

number. It was Fitzpatrick's experience that any job with an

Ogive Rating Scale Value of 2.00 or more should be discarded

as a key job for validation purposes because of the likeli-

hood that the job content would vary to such an extent as to


make even a median wage value for the job relatively useless

as a criterion figure.

Although such a procedure as that created by Fitz-

patrick for assessing the range of rate variability is quite

acceptable, equally adequate results may be obtained from per-

sonal interviews in the labor market in question to determine

key job rates.

In 1956, William M. Fox was faced with the problem of

establishing a valid system of job evaluation to cover a group

of hourly paid workers at the University of Florida.1 The

basic National Metal Trades Plan of evaluation was used. This

plan was originally developed for the Western Electric Company

and adapted by A. L. Kress in 1935, for the National Electri-

cal Manufacturers Association.2 further refinements and

improvements were incorporated into the plan by the Metal Trades

group for their specific use.

The principle problem was to determine whether the

evaluation system as applied was in actuality a proper measure

of job relationships. As in the development of any means of

testing validity, it was necessary to establish external

lWilliam M. Fox, "Job Evaluation of Hourly Paid Jobs
at the University of Florida," 1956. (Unpublished).

2Lytle, op. cit., p. 50.


criteria against which independently rated job point values

might be compared. In this instance, a labor market survey

was undertaken to arrive at a "normal" wage rate for each of

the selected key jobs to be used in the validation process.

A weighted average of the going rates for these key jobs

represented the objective judgment of the labor market as to

the relative worth of said jobs.

Extraordinary precaution was taken to see that the

content of the external jobs, for which wage information was

sought, closely approximated that of the key jobs being rated.

In many instances job titles or, at best, simple written de-

scriptions are used to check the comparability of job content.

In this instance, however, visits were made to a number of

businesses in the community to make absolutely certain that

the jobs being compared were as nearly alike in content as

possible. In the final analysis, the usefulness of the pro-

gram rests upon this important step.

Once the labor market average wage for the key jobs

was ascertained, it was plotted against the total point rat-

ings for the same jobs. Inasmuch as the externally developed

wage differentials accurately measured relative job worth,

if the independently determined point ratings gave the same

or essentially the same ratio of job worth, it could reason-

ably be assumed that the job evaluation system was capable


of adequately predicting the value of intermediate unique

jobs. Proper interpolation of known and unknown job values

was now possible.

Simple correlation was the statistical procedure

applied to obtain a more concrete measure of the degree of

relationship between the two sets of data. The resultant co-

efficient1 became an abstract measure of the validity of the

job rating program. In the particular situation under dis-

cussion, Fox came up with a coefficient exceeding .95 indi-

cating a highly significant, dependable relationship. This

was in keeping with the findings of Guilford regarding the

strength of relationship as expressed by ." It was his

experience that in general "a coefficient of from .90 1.00

denotes a very high correlation and a highly dependable rela-

Subsequent investigations and research in the area of

job evaluation validation by graduate students under the di-

rection of Fox have substantiated the need for achieving a

high validity coefficient if the rating program is to be con-

sidered acceptable. Continued experimentation into this

1Guilford refers to this specific measure as a validity
coefficient -- an index of practical validity. J. P. Guilford,
op. cit., p. 145.



approach to validation might well see the development of a

minimum validity coefficient serving as a test of practical

usefulness of the job evaluation plan.

Another most important contribution of Fox was his

recognition of a means by which validity might be achieved

through manipulation of factor weights. The procedure

assumes reliability of ratings, adequacy of factor coverage

and linearity of the regression line (wage line). Once these

conditions have been met, factor weights may be manipulated

through the use of multiple correlation to achieve optimum

results. In this manner, even an invalid evaluation plan may

be developed into a "correct" plan that will give valid re-

sults. These studies in validity provided the "cap stone"

in the development of job evaluation as an effective and use-

ful tool in wage administration.

Recapitulation of the most important developments in the
evolution of job evaluation

The foregoing chapter has discussed in some detail the

principal advances leading up to the present day concept of

job evaluation.

In summary, the more important developments in the

area of job evaluation were as follows:

1. Recognition by the Chicago Civil Service
Commission of the need for more adequate
job information. The resultant improve-
ments involved both job duties and neces-
sary job specifications.

2. The use of the job evaluation committee by
W. D. Stearns and Eugene J. Benge. The
use of committee decisions overcame the
bias inherent in unilateral decisions in
job evaluation.

3. The creation by Merrill Lott of a point
plan of job evaluation using weighted sep-
arate job factors. Lott's plan was a long
stride forward in the development of eval-
uation plans which give a more accurate
appraisal of job worth.

4. The development of a system of key or
bench-mark jobs by Eugene J, Benge. This
advance in technique prepared the way for
later development of validity checks.

5. Recognition by Eugene J. Benge, D. W. Weed
and A. W. Bass, Jr., of the need for re-
ducing the number of job factors. How-
ever, C. W. Lawshe, Jr., is credited with
the development of a more precise means
of simplifying the point plan of rating
through reduction in the number of factors

6. The work of C. H. Lawshe, Jr., E. J.
McCormick, R. F. Wilson, Leonard Cohen
and David J. Chesler in the development
of means of checking on program reliability.

7. Recognition by Bernard H. Fitzpatrick and
William M. Fox of the need for validating
the job evaluation plan. This last contri-
bution was perhaps the crowning accomplish-
ment in development of the evaluation pro-
gram as a useful tool of management.


This historical review of creative efforts in the

development of more "scientific" job evaluation has served

primarily to give a proper perspective to the study which is

to follow. It is believed that any useful and helpful eval-

uation of hospital activities in the area of job evaluation

must of necessity be established within the framework of re-

search and experimentation which has been previously under-

taken. These aforementioned criteria of good job evaluation

practices will be applied to survey finding in an effort to

determine the extent of their application in hospitals. With

this general background information in mind, the succeeding

study should assume added meaning and importance.



Methodology of Hospital Study

General statement of the problem

The field of Hospital Administration offers an ex-

cellent opportunity to apply fundamental managerial con-

cepts of business operation. Only relatively recently have

many generally accepted management techniques and concepts

been introduced in the hospital and many problem areas re-

main to be investigated. One of the most important diffi-

culties facing the Hospital Administrator is the need for

properly evaluating jobs under his control for purposes of

setting up and operating an equitable wage and salary pro-

gram. This problem area is of special importance since the

administrator must not only deal with specialized hospital

personnel but also with a rather sizeable staff of business

personnel including accountants, typists, stenographers,

office managers and the like. Since such occupations are

normally in direct competition with like jobs in businesses



in the community, a satisfactory program of job evaluation

and wage administration must be undertaken by the adminis-

trator if he expects to retain his work-force intact with-

out costly turnover problems. The problem assumes added sig-

nificance when it becomes apparent that between 65 and 70 per

cent of operating costs for the average hospital are accounted

for by wages and salaries.1

The present study will seek to assess the criticism

that little has been done in the field of hospital administra-

tion to develop a more formal approach to measuring relative

job worth. Although the study is confined to hospitals, com-

parisons are made with job evaluation studies in other func-

tional fields in order to present significant contrasts.

Collection of data was accomplished during a seven month

period extending from August, 1959 through February, 1960.

Information was gathered through personal visitations of

numerous hospitals for first hand discussions with adminis-

trators and personnel managers. Additional data were secured

through an intensive distribution of mailed survey sheets.

Results of both approaches to the problem have been inte-

grated for a more comprehensive presentation. The selection

1Donald Wood, "They Live and Learn With Unions,"
The Modern Hospital, XVIII, No. 1 (July, 1959), pp. 73-75.


of hospitals for inclusion in the study was not made on a

random basis; consequently, sampling theory is not applicable

for purposes of establishing statistical reliability of pre-

dictions. However, since approximately 35 per cent of the

largest hospitals in the country responded to the survey, it

is felt that valid generalizations are warranted.

Scope of study personal visits

In order to secure first-hand information regarding

the current status of job evaluation in hospitals, a personal

visit to sixty different hospitals was made. Hospitals

visited were located in the geographical area from Jackson-

ville, Florida to New York City. In addition, several hos-

pitals in the greater Pittsburgh area were visited. In the

personal survey, no attempt was made to select hospitals on

the basis of size or ownership. Hospitals visited included

small, medium and large institutions with both profit and

non-profit hospitals represented.

In each instance interviews were arranged with either

the administrator or the personnel director of the hospital

in order that reliable information could be obtained. Where

formal job evaluation plans were found to exist, lengthy dis-

cussions were held with the individuals responsible for

development and/or operation of the system. In addition,


contacts were made with consulting firms with experience in

developing and implementing job evaluation programs in the


For more intensive and prolonged analysis, job eval-

uation manuals were secured from hospitals making use of

such plans. In the larger metropolitan areas where hospi-

tal councils existed, contact with individual hospitals was

made through the council's Executive Director. Operating

through the Executive Director enhanced the compilation of

survey results. In the greater Pittsburgh area, the per-

sonal survey included visiting hospitals with an installation

team in order to observe first-hand the methodology involved

in setting up a plan of job evaluation.

Scope of study mailed survey

In conjunction with the personal survey, a mailed sur-

vey was undertaken through the Bureau of Business Research of

the Norfolk College of William and Mary. A four page survey

sheet and covering letter were sent to all hospitals in the

continental United States with 200 beds or more. Federal and

State hospitals were excluded since each is required to use

the same Federal or State system of evaluation and classifi-

cation. The survey was confined to an intensive study of

hospitals with 200 or more beds on the assumption that larger


hospitals would be more likely to have formal plans of job

evaluation upon which wage administration rested. Eight

hundred and fifty-nine hospitals meeting the above specifi-

cations were included in the mailing. Survey sheets were

mailed to both publicly and privately controlled hospitals

located in every state. The mailed survey again included

profit making as well as non-profit institutions.

Of the total number of survey sheetssent out, 255

were returned for a response of approximately 30 per cent.

From this number, 12 returns were discarded for incomplete-

ness or obvious conflicts. The final number of mailed sur-

vey sheets used in the study was 243. This number plus the

60 hospitals visited personally constituted the entire

sample. The survey results are, in most cases, based upon

the 303 responses received.

In order to secure more detailed answers to several

important queaions on the original survey sheet, an additional

letter was sent to each of the 38 hospitals using a point

plan of job evaluation. Twenty-three responses were received.

Of this number, three were eliminated because of insufficient

information. Answers given in the remaining letters have

been incorporated in the subsequent analysis of hospital prac-

tice. A copy of the original questionnaire, the covering

letter and the supplemental letter are included in Appendices

A, B and C, respectively.

Results of the Survey

The necessity of creating techniques for handling the

problem of job relationships is quite clear the extent to

which such techniques have been developed and utilized by

hospitals is not so clear. Results from the aforementioned

survey of hospitals are presented in order to clarify the


Data received from the combined personal and mailed

surveys will be developed under the following headings:

1. General Observations from the Survey.

2. Use of the Local Hospital Council to
Sponsor the Job Evaluation Program.

3. Status and Type of Job Evaluation Plans
in Use in Hospitals.

4. Securing and Developing Job Analyses and

5. Hospital Usage of Community Wage Surveys
in the Evaluation Plan.

6. Use of a Committee in Developing, Installing
and Operating the Hospital Job Evaluation

7. Responsibility for Development and Operation
of the Hospital Job Evaluation Plan.

8. Securing Acceptance of the Hospital Job
Evaluation Plan.

9. Factors and Degree Values Used in Rating
Hospital Jobs.


10. Acceptance and Use of Simplified Evalua-
tion Plans by Hospitals.

11. Extent of Hospital Usage of Reliability
Checks on the Job Evaluation Plan.

12. Extent of Hospital Use of Validity Checks
on the Job Evaluation Plan.

13. Problems Faced by Hospitals in 0 rating
and Controlling the Job Evaluation Plan.

General observations from the survey. During the

course of personal visits to many hospitals, both large and

small and covering a wide geographical area, certain char-

acteristics and tendencies began to emerge. Repeatedly the

comment was made "hospitals are at least ten to twenty years

behind times with respect to many administrative and personnel

practices." For example, the personnel director of a hospital

employing some 950 people, in one of the larger metropolitan

areas, commented that ten years ago there were less than five

hospitals in the city with separate personnel departments.

Furthermore, at present, only about 50 per cent of the hos-

pitals in the area had established a personnel staff. This

was true despite the fact that the size of many of the insti-

tutions in question warranted the creation of an independent

personnel activity.1

1Yoder suggest that a personnel ratio of .80 is aver-
age for organizations with less than 3000 employees. See
Dale Yoder and Roberta J. Nelson, "Industrial Relations
Budgets: Yardsticks for 1959," Personnel, XXXVI, No. 4
(July/August, 1959), p. 23.


Trying to determine why hospitals in general have

been lax in developing more progressive administrative pro-

grams was not an easy task. Responses were somewhat nebu-

lous. Nevertheless, emphasis was repeatedly placed on the

fact that the field of hospital administration was undoubt-

edly facing a period of transition -- a change from the "old

guard" administrator with his frequent use of rule-of-thumb

decision making techniques to the more sophisticated young

graduates of advanced schools of hospital administration.

The impact of this new group is making itself felt in the

establishment and application of more refined administrative

techniques to the organizational and human relations problems

in the hospital. As was the case in industry, the change

has been gradual. In the interim period, a characteristic

confusion prevails with the more progressive hospitals rap-

idly closing the gap while other hospitals in the same area

still cling to antiquated administrative practices.

In repeated instances the responsible administrative

authority suggested that job evaluation would not work in

the hospital because of the unique conditions and relation-

ships which historically prevailed. This philosophy seemed

to exist even in some of the more enlightened areas of hos-

pital administration. The editor of a well-known journal in

hospital administration suggested that "no one in his right


mind is prepared to come out and say boldly that this pro-

fession rates more than that one and this occupation should

be paid more than another." It was his further opinion that

"in most hospitals, wage and salary scales are kept secret

because of the emotion that might be generated when it is

discovered that a girl two years out of high school makes

more money than a graduate nurse with a master's degree."l

It is not likely that the wage issue can be kept secret for

any length of time and, therefore, what is proposed as a

reason for not using job evaluation actually becomes a strong

argument in its favor. In discussing this point, William B.

Schaffroth, administrator of Menorah Medical Center located

in Kansas City, Missouri, stated that one of the major crit-

icisms leveled at job evaluation was that "hospitals are

different and the multiplicity of occupational groups and

the complex functional and status relationship at work make

an industrial type of wage administration impossible."2 In

reply to this issue, Schaffroth, who incidentally has estab-

lished a very successful program at Menorah Medical Center,

1Extract from a letter dated October 5, 1959, to the
writer from Dr. Charles U. Le Tourneau, Editorial Director of
the journal Hospital Management.

2William B. Schaffroth and Wayne D. Zeller, "Wage and
Salary Administration," Hospital Management, LXXXI, No. 5
(May 1956), p. 86.


made the point that "the principles of orderly and equitable

procedures in determining wages cannot be quarreled withy

the details of...applying job evaluation techniques can be

handled with regard for hospital customs. The difference

between most industries and the hospital lies in the profes-

sional groupings, each with its status sensitivities, most of

them setting themselves apart from the workman, many possessing

customs and privileges with historical precedent."l

Perhaps the problem is over-stated in many cases.

Actually, there exist definite status relationships in the

industrial situation. In addition, there are normally sev-

eral factions, including professionals, each of which is

trying to protect its own interests. To further complicate

the issue, most industrial firms, as contrasted to most hos-

pitals, are faced with a group expressing collective demands.

It is difficult to conceive of the problems relating to job

evaluation in the hospital as exceeding those in the indus-

trial situation. True, certain conditions are somewhat

unique to the hospital, for example, the discernable conflict

between medical and administrative organization. However, the

problems once recognized are not impossible of solution.

lIbid., p. 88.


Notwithstanding this recognized complexity, consid-

erable interest was expressed in finding some more equitable

means of apportioning wages. As the administrator of a rela-

tively new hospital of about 550 employees emphatically ex-

pressed the idea, "the time has come when we cannot rely en-

tirely on informal rule-of-thumb methods of creating an ac-

ceptable wage program. The complexity of the modern hospital

dictates that serious thought be given to administrative pro-

cedures that have been tested and proven workable."

Perhaps a major drawback to a much greater acceptance

of job evaluation rests in the fact that, at least for the

hospital field, little research has been undertaken. Conse-

quently there is a lack of reference material to guide the

thinking of the administrator. Furthermore, although many

specific studies on job evaluation have been made in the in-

dustrial field and even in the areas of retailing, whole-

saling, banking and insurance, little or nothing has been done

by way of research directed at extracting and applying the

more advanced methodological techniques of job rating to the

field of hospital administration. The development of even

the general principles of establishing proper job relation-

ships has been woefully lacking. As an indication of this

paucity of information, a considerable number of administra-

tors, when questioned about whether their institution made


use of a formal system of job evaluation, proudly displayed

their merit rating program. This was not only true in the

personal interview but also in the mailed survey. When con-

fronted with a request for literature explaining the plan of

job evaluation, several administrators sent copies of the

employee rating sheet. Other interviewees simply had no

idea what was meant by job evaluation. Much remains to be

done in bringing the idea to the attention of those respon-

sible for its administration.

The personal visitation brought other serious prob-

lem areas to light also. In some instances exploitation of

workers was found to exist. For example, in a medium-sized

hospital in the Southeast, the Personnel Manager explained

that his organization was paying unskilled help $20.00 a week

for 48 hours of work. In defense of his position he further

explained that another institution in the same city was pay-

ing only $16.00 a week for the same number of hours. In the

case of the first hospital, indication was given that one

meal per day was added to the compensation. When questioned

further, it was explained that the meal was given to insure

that the worker would be able to stay on the job.

In another case, the Assistant Administrator of a hos-

pital employing some 600 individuals in one of the large metro-

politan areas located in the Middle Eastern states stated


that his hospital paid unskilled labor slightly more than

$22.00 a week for 44 hours. No doubt these are extreme

cases; however, such cases do exist. None of the above men-

tioned institutions had taken any steps to alleviate the

situation through the installation of a job evaluation pro-

gram. In both instances cited above, the reason given for

paying such a low level of wages was that the supply of such

labor far exceeded the demand. Perhaps the idea expressed

by one of the early writers in the management field deserves

attention at this point. It was his opinion that:

To leave the question of the value of a
certain job to the labor market entirely
(supply and demand) to take care of it is
dead wrong. Better means to determine the
value of a particular job are necessary,
and it is only by1mowing the service ren-
dered by it as a productive unit that its
value can be determined.

Evidence tends to confirm this view. If the determination of

the wage of unskilled hospital labor were left entirely to

market forces, wages paid would often be so low as to inter-

fere with minimum standards of performance.

The supply schedule of unskilled hospital labor is

best represented as perfectly elastic within the relevant

range of hospital demand for such labor. Such a supply

lB. Gabine, "Value and Application of Job Analysis,"
Industrial Management, LXI, No. 3 (February 1, 1921), p. 107.


schedule is consistent with the report of many adninistra-

tors that they can secure as many unskilled workers as they

want at the going wage rate for that class of labor and is

based on the assumption that there is a certain minimum wage

level below which even unskilled laborers will not work.

Given the demand and supply schedule presented in
the diagram below administrators could hire ON workers at

the wage OW. Since only ON workers are needed, NN workers

No. oF w oRKERS

are left unemployed. While the hospital need pay only a wage

of OW to obtain all the workers desired, it is contended that

the wage is often too low to be consistent with efficient per-

formance. If the price of labor drops to the point where the


workers cannot maintain their effectiveness, management will

suffer the results in decreased efficiency of operations.

Apparently, the government feels that social legislation in

the form of minimum wages is necessary in protecting the un-

organized worker from the vagaries of the market. Conse-

quently, even though the market if not tampered with does

set the price of labor, from a management point of view, good

practice would dictate the recognition of moral and social re-

sponsibility towards the worker. Furthermore, reducing wages

to the subsistence level does not necessarily reduce labor

costs. Workers paid such a low wage will find many ways to

refrain from working or, at least, find ways to work as

slowly and inefficiently as possible. Such a condition is

conducive to poor morale. Consequently, management is faced

with problems which will more than offset any cost savings

which might be anticipated from paying subsistence wages.

Clearly such tactics as those mentioned above even-

tually lead to organized efforts on the part of workers to

alleviate the situation. Witness to this effort is the rash

of attempts at unionizing which have recently confronted hos-

pitals in many sections of the country. Even the deep South

is beginning to feel the pressure. Only recently the

Teamsters Union launched a drive to organize the non-techni-

cal employees of county hospitals in Miami.1

Handicapping many union drives at present is the

fact that voluntary, non-profit hospitals are exempt from

the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act. Consequently, such

hospitals need not recognize or bargain with unions represent-

ing the workers.2 In addition, many state laws further em-

phasize the fact that such hospitals need not deal with

unions.3 How long these conditions will exist is a matter

for conjecture. Several administrators in the New York area

expressed belief that pressure was being exerted to have the

restriction stricken from the state law. Although non-profit

hospitals are not required to deal with unions, many employees

still join the union ranks in the hope that sufficient pres-

sure might be exerted indirectly to achieve at least a higher

wage. Such was the case in New York City. One administrator

confided that he was doing all in his power to render the

1"Unionizing Hospitals," Wall Street Journal, April 2,
1959, p. 1.

2Under section 2 (2) of the Taft-Hartley Act, in
defining the term employer, charitable hospitals and non-
profit associations are among those employers excluded from
the Act's coverage.

3See Stephen J. Mueller, Labor Law and Legislation
(2nd ed.; Cincinnati: Southwestern Publishing Company,
1956), pp. 178-182.


union impotent. However, the collective action of hourly

paid workers had brought severe pressure for wage increases.

Indirectly, and even with the hospital refusing to recognize

the union, wage rates were forced upward. When the hospital's

wage rates are forced upward as a result of union action, any

benefit that might have come from raising wages voluntarily

are lost. Employees will not try to increase their producti-

vity under such circumstances. As a result, wage costs in-

crease and the resultant antagonism between management and

labor remains. Again, the hospital in question had made no

effort to create an equitable internal wage structure based

upon job evaluation. As a matter of fact, only one of the

hospitals visited in metropolitan New York had installed a

job evaluation plan, and in this instance the plan was not

installed until after the effort was made to unionize its

employees. This laxity on the part of New York's hospitals

was at least partially responsible for the serious labor dis-

turbances which plagued them during 1959.1

The idea of hospital unionization is drawing increased

attention from administrators. In nearly every case, low

iSee the April 2, 1959, issue of the Wall Street
Journal for a complete story of the attempt by three sep-
arate unions to unionize more than 30,000 non-professional
employees in New York's non-profit hospitals.


wages seemed to be central to the issue. In giving advice

to the hospital facing union organization, Raymond Farwell,

administrator of Swedish Hospital in Seattle, made the

following point:

Make sure that your own position is
defensible from the standpoint of the
wages and working conditions for hos-
pital employees. If the unions have
nothing to sell in the way of real im-
provement for your employees, they will
not be able to recruit any substantial
number of members.1

Essentially the same idea was expressed by Donald Wood,

Executive Director of the Twin City Regional Hospital

Council of St. Paul-Minneapolis:

A very important factor in the organi-
zation of an employee group is that of
the standards of employment that exist...
Do they at least meet standards of wages
and fringe benefits in the community --
wages and fringe benefits for like jobs
and like employment?2

With regard to fringe benefits of the special type

that have historically been considered necessary in many

hospitals (meals, room and board, uniforms, etc.) the

trend appears to be changing. Almost without exception

administrators and personnel managers reported a definite

1Raymond F. Farwell, "The Hospital's Side of a
Hospital Strike," The Modern Hospital, LIXIII, No. 1
(July 1959), p. 67.

2Wood, op. cit., p. 74.


decline in the use of payments in kind with a consequent

increase in cash payments for work accomplished. This

change will definitely accentuate the wage problem both

in terms of the necessity of meeting the community wage

level as well as the need for establishing more valid

inter-job rates since more direct wage comparison is


Use of local hospital council to sponsor job eval-

uation program. One of the most unique and potentially

useful programs discovered during the personal survey was

the use of the local Hospital Council to sponsor the job

evaluation program. Basically it "represents the first

attempt to obtain the benefits of scientific management for

a large group of hospitals in a single geographical area."l

The program was initiated by the Council after extensive

expressions of interest were forthcoming from member hos-

pitals. A foundation grant provided sufficient funds to

cover the initial or "tooling up" phase of the program as

well as the necessary working capital. After a short inter-

val of time, the program was shifted to a fee-for-service

basis and became entirely self-supporting.

1Quoted from a directive published by the western
Pennsylvania Hospital Council to be sent to all hospital
members of the Council.


The plan involved a systematic three-stage approach

directed primarily at increasing hospital efficiency

through the development and implementation of more up-to-

date management techniques and procedures. It was felt

that since the hospital was a high labor cost operation, an

attempt to eliminate waste and inefficiency in this area

offered the best hope for reducing costs. Interestingly

enough, although the program eventually intended to make

use of methods engineering and improvements, it was the

area of wage and salary administration that received first


The first stage of the program was devoted to the

design and development of a job evaluation program which

was installed in three "pilot" hospitals. The Council

brought in three analysts, each of whom was experienced

in hospital job evaluation, plus two office workers. With

the assistance of a management consulting firm, the ana-

lysts carried out the initial stage. This first part of

the program was of four months duration during which time

procedures were refined and experience gained so that the

Council staff of three members could assume entire respon-

sibility for the remainder of the program.

Stage two is still in process of accomplishment.

It entails the establishment of "tailor-made" job evaluation


programs in each of the Council's member hospitals on a

request-for-service basis. It is important to recognize

that a rigid pattern of wages is not forced on all hos-

pitals in the area. In the first place, all position de-

scriptions and evaluations and the resultant salary classi-

fication plan are all specifically designed to meet actual

conditions existing in the individual hospital. The only

standardization in the project relates to procedures for

carrying out the survey work and the job evaluation plan

used. And, secondly, participation in the program is purely

voluntary. Stipulation has been made that work would be

limited to those hospitals that were prepared to make use

of the work done by the project staff. Under such re-

strictions, inter-hospital salary standardization is hardly

possible. An integral part of the installation of the pro-

gram in each hospital is the training of a coordinator from

the participating hospital. As a result, once the team has

completed its mission, the hospital will have an experienced

individual who can be charged with the responsibility of

maintaining the newly installed plan on a day-to-day opera-

tional basis. Part of the training involved the constant

participation of the coordinator in the establishment and

installation of the job evaluation plan in his hospital.


Once the wage and salary program is properly estab-

lished, it is expected that stage three will be put into

operation as a natural outgrowth of the two proceeding

stages. This particular phase of the program will see

emphasis shifted to management audits and methods improve-

ment projects among participating hospitals in order to

achieve increased efficiency in hospital management. It

is expected that an automatic demand for stage three will

be created during the implementation of stage two as the

hospitals began to apply and evaluate the results of the

job evaluation work.

Perhaps the most important result of this "group

concept" is the reduction in cost of installing a tailor-

made job evaluation plan in the participating hospitals.

The cost differential between having an outside consultant

perform the work on an individual hospital basis and having

the same job accomplished through the Council ran as high

as 80 per cent. This significant reduction in cost places

this particular management technique at the disposal of

most hospitals. Furthermore, it is expected that the results

achieved by the Council staff group might well be superior

to that accomplished by an outside agency. It is obvious

that much valuable information and experience can be gleaned


by the Council group inasmuch as all of their efforts are

confined to hospitals with their specialized and unique

problem areas. On the other hand, an outside agency might

not have sufficient experience in the hospital field.

Since the interrelationships that exist in the hospital are

considered to be different from the industrial situation,

difficulties might be incurred. And, finally, although

salary standardization is not the purpose of the program, a

gradual process of standardizing salaries in the local

Council's area might well be established on a voluntary

basis. Such a result could substantially reduce the per-

sonnel problem of employee transfers among hospitals be-

cause of wage differentials.

Status and type of job evaluation plans in use in

hospitals. In order to obtain a better understanding of

the place job evaluation fills in the hospital's wage pro-

gram, it is necessary to look more closely at the specific

results of the survey findings. The material presented here

represents a general picture of the status of formal job

evaluation in the hospital field. It is not intended to

reflect on any individual institution. Individual inter-

pretations are made with this point in mind. The results

are based entirely on survey findings. In an effort to


discover as many hospital job evaluation plans as possible,

the survey included primarily those hospitals which were

more likely to have such plans in operation. Consequently,

it is likely that the results present an over-statement

rather than an understatement of the extent to which job

evaluation systems are used by hospitals.

Keeping in mind the possible limitations mentioned

above, it can be stated with reasonable certainty that at

present a sizeable segment of the hospital field has not

developed formal job evaluation techniques. In the mailed

survey, only 34 per cent of the hospitals contacted had

established formal job rating techniques. The personal

survey revealed even a smaller percentage (23 per cent) of

hospitals currently using a formal evaluation plan (see

Table 4). This is a poor showing indeed when compared to

the high percentage of industrial concerns presently

making use of job rating in developing a more equitable

wage program. However, there seems to have been a recent

awakening on the part of administrators to the desperate

need for such a tool to guide in wage decisions. This is

evident from the fact that when the two surveys are

1"Job Evaluation; A Survey of Company Practices,"
Management Review, XLIII, No. 11 (November 1954), pp. 732-


combined, more than 42 per cent of the respondents indi-

cated that they were either in the process of installing a

formal system or were contemplating the development and

implementation of such a plan in the very near future.



Mailed Survey Personal Survey
Item Number Per Cent Number Per Cent

No formal program and no
plan to install 49 20 28 47
Formal program now in
effect 84 34 14 23
Installing formal plan
at time of survey 43 18 2 3
Planning to install
formal plan in near
future 67 28 16 27

Totals 243 100 60 100

Source: Hospital Job Evaluation Survey.

In hospitals with job evaluation plans covering be-

tween 100 to 2000 employees, the point system predominated.

This is in keeping with the trend in industrial and service

organizations. The basic importance of the point plan is

l"Job Evaluation; A Survey of Company Practices,"
Management Review, XLVI, No. 4 (April 1957), pp. 42-44.


that it leads to more logical development of an adequate

wage structure. In addition, experience with usage of the

point plan in hospitals has suggested that "the point

scoring method is more objective than other plans. It not

only furnishes a more adequate yardstick for establishing

wage and salary differentials in a single hospital, but it

also facilitates job and rate comparisons between hospitals

in any city or geographical area."1

In addition, the point plan renders more practical

scientific approaches to proving the worth of the system.

At best job evaluation tends to be subjective in nature

and, without verification as to validity and reliability,

results might well prove of negative value. At least with

respect to validity, quantitative data are necessary in the

development of program checks; such quantitative data are

more readily discernible in the point plan ratings.

In the present survey, considering both "plans in

effect" and "plans being installed," in hospitals with up

to 2,000 covered employees, 61 (43 per cent) institutions

reported use of a point plan. Two hospitals with more than

2,000 covered employees also indicated use of a point plan

IRobert A. Bradburn, "Job Evaluation Answers the
65 Cent Question for Hospitals," Hospitals, XXXI (August 16,
1957), p. 31.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs