The MVQS Vocational Interest And Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Job-Based Personality Type Indicator And MTSP Jobs-Based Voca

The MVQS1 Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Job-based Personality Type Indicator and MTSP2 Jobs-Based Vocational Interest Personality Types Crosswalk to Jung People-Based Personality Types

Billy J. McCroskey, Ph.D., Steven J. Hahn, M.S., Scott E. Streater, D.V.S., Larry L. Sinsabaugh, Ph.D., Lyndette L. Mayer, Ph.D., Eugene E. Van de Bittner, Ph.D., Janet K. Lowe, M.S. and Kenneth L. Dennis, Ph.D. Abstract According to Personality Theorist Carl Jung3, human motivation to act or behave in predictable ways may be explained in terms of creative energy and classified into a variety of Jung People-based Personality Types based on different combinations of four dimensions of opposing personality trait continuums:  Extravert vs. Introvert,  Sensing vs. iNtuiting,  Thinking vs. Feeling, and  Judgment vs. Perception. Combining opposing personality dimensions by selecting one end of each of the four continuums (E or I, and S or N, and T or F and J or P) yields 16 four-letter MVQS Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Job-based Personality Types4. Each of these have a corresponding Jung People-based Personality Types (e.g., ESTJ, ISTJ, ENTJ, INTJ, . . . ENFP, INFP). The 16 VIPR Job-based Personality Types can be helpful in terms of describing and explaining vocational aspects of complex human behavior. They can also be helpful in matching individuals with Specific Job Types, via the MVQS2001 VIPR Job-based Personality Type Crosswalk, which optimally reinforce (correspond with) their Vocational Interests, Occupational Values, Needs, and General Jung People-based Personality Type.

1 McCroskey, B. J. (2001). The McCroskey Vocational Quotient System (MVQS2001) Job-Person Matching Program. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc. 2 McCroskey, B. J. (2001). The McCroskey Transferable Skills Program (MTSP). In: The McCroskey Vocational Quotient System 2001 (MVQS2001) Job-Person Matching Program. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc. 3 Jung, Carl Gustav - Swiss-born Personality Theorist (1875-1961). 4 VIPR Job Types are 16 General Job-based Personality Types. Each Job-based Personality Type corresponds with one of the 16 General Jung People-based Personality Types. In 2001, the US world of work as we know it has 12,775 Specific Job Types. Each Specific Job Type fits best within one General VIPR Job-based Personality Type and it's correspondent General Jung People-based Personality Type. Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was:

1) To reasonably order the 12,775 Specific Job Types described in the McDOT2001 into 16 General Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcement (VIPR) Job-based Personality Types. These General Job-based Personality Types would include seemingly Independent, yet Dependent, Specific Job Types, within and across, the 16 General VIPR Job-based Personality Types, when ordered by Percent of Transferable Skills Valence5 across all 12,775 Specific Job Types.

 Note: Retaining Specific Job Types with the highest TS Valence in each single best General VIPR Job- based Personality Type, and eliminating all other duplicate, or lower TS Valence Specific Job Types, within and across, the 16 General VIPR Job-based Personality Types, brings more independent order to the world of work. By forging a link between General Jung People-based Personality Types and their single-best most correspondent General VIPR Job-based Personality Types, we can better match people with jobs based on relevant Personality attributes. The 16 corresponding Job-Person Personality-based Job-Person Matching Types were developed so Career Guidance and Counseling Professionals could provide Personality-based career guidance and counseling to their clientele. How so? By considering which General Jung People-based Personality Type best fits which General VIPR Job-based Personality Type as defined by the set of Specific Job Types nested within each VIPR Job-based Personality Type.

2) To develop an MVQS Vocational Interests & Personality (VIPR) Job-based Personality Type Indicator (both a Paper and Pencil, and a Machine version) which classifies all 12,775 Specific McDOT2001 Job Types into 16 General VIPR Job-based Personality Types, corresponding with the 16 General Jung People-based Personality Character Types6 identified in the literature.

5 Percent of Transferable Skills Valence is defined as the level of Transferable Skills (TS) between two or more Specific Job Types. This is on an MVQS Percent Scale ranging from 0 to 97%. The higher the TS Valence between two or more Specific Job Types, the greater the probability of skills transferability between those Job Types. Valence between two or more seemingly independent Job Types, in any General VIPR Job-based Personality Type, is defined in terms of similarities of occupational interests, values, needs, and other personality attributes common to People Personality Types drawn to Specific Job Types in that same General VIPR Job-based Personality Type. Valence between two or more People in the same General Jung People-based Personality Type is correspondingly defined in terms of similarities of occupational interests, values, needs, and other personality attributes common across individuals in that same General Jung People-based Personality Type. 6 Source Web Site: http://www.doi.gov/octc/typescar.html Review of Literature The Origins of Job-Person Matching

In the early 1930s, the United States Department of Labor (US DOL) began widespread studies of the requirements of jobs in America. These studies were initially prompted by the need to understand job requirements to better match disabled veterans with jobs. The goal was to reduce or eliminate the impact of vocationally handicapping conditions (McCroskey, 1979; McCroskey & Lowe, 1986, 1987; McCroskey, Streater, Timming, Wattenbarger & Lowe, 1989, 1991).

In 1933, the United States War Manpower Commission received congressionally-authorized funding for job analysis research, which later produced the first edition of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT, US DOL, 1939). That book was an attempt to objectively describe all jobs in the United States. Eventually, the US DOT served as a model copied by many countries around the world [(McCroskey & Lowe, 1986, 1987); Shartle (1964)]. Subsequent editions of the DOT, Volumes II, III and IV, were researched using objective, behaviorally-anchored Job Analysis Scales and Techniques, described, quantified and published in 1949, 1965, and 1977, respectively.

In 1991, instead of researching and updating to a 5th edition DOT, the 1977 4th edition DOT was simply revised and became known as the 1991 revised 4th edition DOT.

In 1998, the O*NET 98 Viewer (Version 1.0) was put out, not as an updated DOT, but as a replacement for the DOT. It contained far too much general information and not nearly enough specific to be of much use to Vocational Experts, Career Guidance Counselors, Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors or Consultants, Vocational Evaluators, Psychologists, Psychometrists, or similar professionals.

In 2000, since the USDOL had abandoned updating US DOT to a 5th edition, the McCroskey Dictionary of Occupational Titles (McDOT) was updated to a 5th Edition DOT by Vocationology, Inc., a private sector firm in Brooklyn Park, MN. The methods used included a great deal of data mining of the O*NET 98 DOT replacement data along with the data fusion necessary to rebuild the 24 most vocationally significant worker trait profiles for the 12,775 Specific Job Types in McDOT2001.

The Jung Connection to VIPR Type Indicators

The VIPR code was determined from Jung, C.G. (1971). Myers-Briggs resources from Consulting Psychologist Press (CPP) were noted, but not used. We went back to the original source (Jung, 1971). The VIPR types are numbered in order of frequency in the McDOT. Number 1 is the most common type and number 16 is the least common type. While a person may have a personality type (or Conceptual Type as we would describe it), the desired VIPR type is specific to employment. VIPR does not say what type you are. It says what type of job you prefer to have. For many people, personality type is the same as the employment preference type. This cannot be assumed, however, for all workers. Since the VIPR test asks the person to rate jobs on the basis of desirability, it focuses on work preference rather than general personality. Therefore, in its development, focus and prediction, VIPR is not related to Myers-Briggs. Carl Jung remains the theoretical base for the 16 VIPR Type Indicators. Evaluative Data Profiling

The 24 Most Vocationally Significant Worker Traits for Manual and Computerized Job-Person Matching

Since the introduction of the formal Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment in 1964, the US DOL has collected a myriad of worker trait / job requirement element-level data, and utilized that data to develop worker trait / job requirement traits-level data.

McCroskey (1982,1983, 1985, 1987, 1989 & 1990) and McCroskey & Lowe (1986, 1987) described the 24, most vocationally significant, traits-level worker traits, which should be measured, or rated, and used for evaluative data profiling in McCroskey Vocational Analysis. This 24 worker traits-level characteristics evaluative data profile should be developed using the McPLOT TestPlot Program and then transferred to the McCroskey Transferable Skills Program (MTSP; McCroskey, 2000) for the best, most reliable and most well validated Job-Person Matching, Employability Determination, and Earning Capacity Prediction Estimates. All of these worker traits have been operationally defined on behaviorally anchored job analysis scales in the Handbook for Analyzing Jobs-Revised (USDOL 1972, 1976, 1991). These 24, most vocationally significant, worker trait characteristics are listed below: The 24 Most Vocationally Significant Worker Traits For MVQS2001 Job-Person Matching General Educational Development Worker Traits

R - Reasoning M - Math L - Language Aptitude Worker Traits

S - Spatial Perception P - Form Perception Q - Clerical Perception K - Motor Coordination F - Finger Dexterity M - Manual Dexterity E - Eye-Hand-Foot Coordination C - Color Discrimination Physical Capacity Worker Traits

PD1 - Lifting/Carrying/Pushing/Pulling/Sitting/Standing/Walking PD2 - Climbing/Balancing PD3 - Stooping/Bending/Crouching/Squatting/Kneeling/Crawling PD4 - Reaching/Handling/Fingering/Feeling PD5 - Talking/Hearing PD6 - Seeing Environmental Tolerance Worker Traits

EC1 - Work Location (Indoors/Both/Outdoors) EC2 - Extreme Cold EC3 - Extreme Heat EC4 - Dampness/Humidity EC5 - Noise/Vibrations EC6 - Hazards (Mechanical/Electrical/Chemical/Heights) EC7 - Fumes/Dusts/Mists/Gases/Odors Updating the Year 2000 Vocational Quotient (VQ1)

Relationship between the Old VQ versus the Year 2000 VQ1

The most comprehensive approach to bring order to the world of work and work adjustment, in terms of understanding Overall Job Difficulty and Maximum Vocational Potential, is the McCroskey Vocational Quotient (VQ). The Vocational Quotient was developed from the U.S. Department of Labor (US DOL) Job Analysis behavioral anchor ratings. There were 51 worker traits listed in the 1972 Handbook for Analyzing Jobs-Revised. In 1979, the 12,099 Job Titles described in the 1977 Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT; USDOL, 1977) were arranged by VQ, based on those 51 worker traits (McCroskey & Perkins, 1981), and published in the original four volumes of the Encyclopedia of Job Requirements (McCroskey, 1979a, 1979b, 1979c, 1979d).

The 51 worker trait raw scores for each nine-digit DOT job type were added together to produce a total or sum of scores. Some of these raw scores (N=20) had several possible scale values. For example, Reasoning (R), Math (M), and Language (L) had scores that ranged from one to six, and Spatial (S), Form Perception (P) and other aptitudes had scores ranging from one to five. Other worker traits (N=31) such as Seeing (Physical Demand #6) had only two possible values at the worker-trait level: a significant "1" or not significant "0" job requirement. The original Vocational Quotient (VQ) distribution had a mean of 57.1999 and a standard deviation of 14.4558 points.

The raw scores were divided into two groups based on whether they had three or more possible values (scalar; N=20), or two possible values (dichotomous; N=31). After recoding all worker trait profile values to place them on ascending scales, a multiple regression analysis was completed on the scalar variables to predict the Total Raw Score VQ (TRS-VQ). A second multiple regression was then completed using only the dichotomous variables to predict the TRS-VQ. The relevant acquired regression weights for each worker trait profile were multiplied by their corresponding worker trait profile values and summed to produce the Scalar Variables Vocational Quotient (SVVQ). The relevant acquired regression weights for each worker trait profile were also multiplied by their corresponding worker trait profile values and summed to produce Dichotomous Variables Vocational Quotient (DVVQ) estimates of overall job difficulty, as measured by the TRS-VQ criterion, for each job described in the 1977, 4th ed. DOT. The final SVVQ (Rxy=0.99+ with TRS-VQ) distribution had a mean of 57.1998 and a standard deviation of 14.3741 points. The final DVVQ (Rxy=0.92+ with TRS-VQ) distribution had a mean of 57.2299 and a standard deviation of 13.3208 points. When the final sets of three Vocational Quotients (VQs) were printed to five decimal points, each unique worker trait / job requirements profile pattern was found to be associated with a unique and empirically precise set of VQs (McCroskey & Perkins, 1981).

Since 1979, all worker trait profiles and their VQs published in the original four volume edition of the Encyclopedia of Job Requirements (McCroskey, 1979a, 1979b, 1979c, 1979d) have been updated several times. They are now electronically incorporated in the McCroskey Dictionary of Occupational Titles (McDOT) and related McPLOT and MTSP programs. The final product of the first regression analysis (the SVVQ) was ultimately selected as the more robust and more precise estimate of the overall TRS-VQ. The SVVQ was therefore selected as the final, single-best, most representative, Vocational Quotient (VQ) estimate of overall job difficulty for each job.

In 1992, the VQ distribution was updated, recalculated, and transformed to produce a distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 to provide consistency with the WAIS IQ distribution. People have IQs, Jobs have VQs. Put another way, VQ can be thought of as an IQ for work. When the final transformed VQ was printed to five decimal points, each unique job requirement pattern was found to be associated with a unique and empirically precise VQ.

In 1995, 2,408 internal DOT inconsistencies identified through research were corrected. This effected 1,913 of the 12,741 worker trait profiles for jobs described in the 1991 DOT. The VQ was re-calculated to adjust for these profile changes. Again, as expected, when the final VQ was printed to five decimal points, each unique job requirement pattern was again found to be associated with a unique and empirically precise VQ.

In 2000, the 12,775 worker trait profiles for jobs described in the McDOT2000 were recalculated based on data fusion of 75 selected O*NET 98 worker trait elements with the 24, most vocationally significant, McDOT 8.0R worker traits to reconstitute the McDOT 2000 5th edition DOT - Extended Dataset Edition. Both SVP and VQ aggregate variables were then re-calculated to adjust for the new, updated, Year 2000 worker trait level profile changes. In these re-calculations, only the 24, most vocationally significant (regardless of their scalar or dichotomous nature), worker trait values were used to determine the final SVP1 and VQ1 for each job. Again, as expected, when the final VQ1 was printed to five decimal places, each unique job requirement profile pattern was again found to be associated with a unique and empirically precise Vocational Quotient VQ1.

VQ (or VQ1), represents the Overall Job Difficulty level of Adaptive or Accommodative Behavior (in terms of Satisfactoriness and Satisfaction) required for people to accomplish meaningful Work Adjustment and develop Tenure for each of the 12,775 jobs described in the McCroskey Dictionary of Occupational Titles (McDOT2001; McCroskey, 2001).

Many studies have reviewed the use of the Vocational Quotient based on both the DOT and the O*NET. These studies included McCroskey & Lowe (1986, 1987), McCroskey (1991, 1992), McCroskey & Hahn (1995, 1997, 1998), (McCroskey, Hahn, Dennis & Streater (1995), McCroskey, Bohlke & Streater (1995), Hahn (1997), Dennis & Dennis (1998), McCroskey, Dennis & Dennis(1998), Hahn & Wells-Moran (1998), Dennis & Tichauer, (1998), Dennis & McCroskey (1999), McCroskey & Dennis (1999), Mayer (1998), and Dennis & McCroskey, (2000).

The Vocational Quotient (VQ) has been shown repeatedly to be a valid predictor of average starting and overall wages in California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina Virginia, Wisconsin, Washington, and other states. The Vocational Quotient (VQ) has been shown to be reliable and valid within and across independent cross- validation replication studies, longitudinal time frames (15+ years), and numerous geographic locations.

VQ has been repeatedly studied as a predictor of starting wages offered on Job Service Work Order Openings, overall average wages across all workers in the US, and average starting wages achieved by randomly selected rehabilitation clients at time of Status 26 closure in Indiana. VQ has been found to be highly predictive of average starting wages [(Rxy=0.91; SEE=$0.50/hr; McCroskey & Hahn (1998)], overall average wages across all workers in the United States [(Rxy=0.99+; SEE=$0.01/hr; McCroskey & Hahn (1998)], and average post-rehabilitation services starting wages of clients at time of Status 26 closure in Indiana [Mayer (1998, Rxy=0.68; SEE=$1.25/hr) and Dennis & McCroskey (2000, independent 2 replication study Rxy=0.83; R =0.70; SEE=$1.12/hr)].

Dennis & McCroskey (2000) independently replicated, expanded and updated Mayer’s (1998) Indiana labor market wage research, which was an update of her original study7 of 132 randomly selected people that received State of Indiana Division of Disability, Aging, and Rehabilitation services and were placed in jobs in 1993 (Mayer, 1995). All clients in these studies met the criteria of being successfully rehabilitated. Mayer's 1998 MTSP 7.11R follow-up of her original study was replicated and expanded using MTSP 8.0R Program Earning Capacity Estimates.

Mayer (1998) found a gain of about $1.00 above the predicted average return-to-work wage for Indiana Rehabilitation clients based on MTSP 7.11R Program Earning Capacity Estimates. That gain was due in part to a small group of people with exceptionally high incomes. When those 2 Outliers were removed in the Dennis & McCroskey (2000) follow-up study (Rxy=0.83; R =0.70; SEE=$1.12 per hour), average return-to-work wage for Indiana Rehabilitation clients was about $1.00 below what had been predicted.

McCroskey & Dennis (2000), in an expansion of Mayer's 1998 study, included an analysis of Temperaments. The expanded study of Indiana Job Services openings and starting wages data from March, 1995 through February, 1996 compared income predictions when Temperaments or Personality variables were added to the MTSP VQ-Wage prediction formula. In the expanded study, Temperaments or Personality variables did not improve the VQ-Wage prediction sufficiently to overcome the increased variance inherent in these measures.

Building on previous research which assessed the validity of Vocational Quotient (VQ1) as a predictor of criterion referenced Job Service work order wages to be very positive, McCroskey, Hahn & Dennis (2000) established a new, expanded criterion-reference point distribution for MVQS2001 earning capacity estimation: six-point earning capacity prediction estimates. In their study8, McCroskey, Hahn & Dennis (2000) evaluated the ability of the VQ1 to predict income reported for Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) job groups. Linear regression was used to predict reported income at the Mean, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 90th percentile of the OES-Wage distributions. When VQ1 was used to predict to the middle of these six criterion-referenced distributions, it was found to be a very accurate predictor of each of these OES-Wage distributions reported by the US Department of Labor. Predictive Validity (Rxy) Coefficients were found to be 0.970, 0.973, 0.975, 0.974, 0.972 and 0.966, respectively. Standard Errors of Estimate (SEE) were found to be $1.19, $0.45, $0.69, $1.08, $1.65 and $2.66 per hour, respectively.

McCroskey, Hahn & Dennis (2000) recommended the expanded 6-point VQ1-OES Wage Algorithm, based on specific McDOT-VQ19 OES Wage Prediction, be used in the MVQS2001 Program to expand the range of predicted earning capacity estimates, increase overall reliability of predicted earning capacity

7 The authors wish to thank Dr. Lindette Mayer for providing raw data and permission to replicate her 1998 study. 8 McCroskey, B. J., Hahn, S. J. & Dennis. (2000). MTSP VQ1-OES Aggregate & VQ1-McDOT Specific Wage Estimation. The Journal of Forensic Vocationology, Vol. 6(1), pp. 107-134. estimates and reduce aggregate SEEs associated with prediction estimates. Their recommendations were peer-reviewed, found to be empirically sound, and subsequently implemented in the MVQS2001 Program (McCroskey, 2001).

9 McCroskey Dictionary of Occupational Titles (McDOT; McCroskey, 2001) 5th Edition DOT: VQ-VQ1 Replacement Data. Informal vs. Formal Job-Person Matching Theory

In his book entitled Choosing a Vocation, Frank Parsons10 (1909), known by many as the father of vocational guidance, postulated three primary requirements for effective vocational guidance:

1. A knowledge of the requirements and conditions for success in different lines of work, as well as related advantages and disadvantages, compensation, opportunities and prospects (knowledge of the world of work); 2. A clear understanding of the aptitudes, interests, ambitions, resources and limitations of the individual (self-knowledge and insight); and, 3. Systematic techniques for integrating these two sources of information in the vocational decision-making process (bringing the first two conditions together).

Parsons’ informal, yet profound, three-part theory for vocational guidance continues to guide the efforts of many theoreticians, researchers and clinical practitioners working to develop and refine the methodologies, techniques and tools necessary to provide better vocational counseling.

The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawis, England and Lofquist, 1964) provided formal (testable) foundational underpinning for all worker trait factor job person matching systems which later emerged. Many of these had their beginning in the late 1970s with the development of the Vocational Diagnosis and Assessment of Residual Employability [VDARE; (McCroskey, Wattenbarger, Field & Sink, 1977)], and continuing through the 1980s and 90s. These worker-trait-factor job-person matching TSA systems were all developed and computerized based on data describing job requirements in terms of the objectively defined behaviorally- anchored rating scales found in the Handbook for Analyzing Jobs-Revised (HAJ-R; USDOL, 1972; Reprinted, 1976; Re-revised 1991).

From 1900 to 1976, more than 20,000 mental and physical tests, covering a multitude of worker traits, had been developed and utilized in an effort to better understand individual differences in terms of basic human capacities and tolerances (Buros, eds. 1-8, 1938-1978). While many of these tests have been used as lone predictors of employability, research clearly supports the administration of a battery of vocationally relevant tests used in combination for better prediction of the multifaceted criteria known as individual employability (Anastasi, 1958, Anastasi, 1976, Bolton, 1976).

Flexible test batteries designed to allow for the systematic measurement of vocationally significant worker traits, remain a priority. Continuing efforts should focus on developing, refining and updating Ability and Work Context instruments and measures of Worker Traits/Job Requirements primarily in these four, vocationally-significant Worker Trait Factor areas:

1) General Educational Development, (3 worker traits) 2) Vocational Aptitudes, (8 worker traits) 3) Physical Capacities (6 worker traits, and 10 Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a Vocation. (1st ed.); Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. 4) Environmental Tolerances (7 worker traits).

It is important that such measures be standardized with well-defined behavioral anchors, which are reliable, valid and interpreted in terms of relevant job requirements relative to general adult worker norms. Well- developed tests and measures with reasonable approximations of general adult worker norms can subsequently be combined into a test battery with their results combined and effectively utilized to accomplish Parsons’ (1909) third recommendation for matching people with jobs (McCroskey, Streater, Timming, Wattenbarger & Lowe, 1989; 1991). The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment

While informal Job-Person Matching Theory dates back to Parsons (1909), the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawis, England and Lofquist, 1964) provided the first formal foundational underpinning for all worker-trait-factor job person matching systems. These later emerged, beginning in the late 1970s with the development of the Vocational Diagnosis and Assessment of Residual Employability [VDARE; (McCroskey, Wattenbarger, Field & Sink, 1977)], and continuing through the 1980s and 90s. These worker- trait-factor job-person matching TSA systems were all developed and computerized based on data describing job requirements in terms of the objectively defined behaviorally-anchored rating scales found in the Handbook for Analyzing Jobs-Revised (HAJ-R; USDOL, 1972; Reprinted, 1976; Re-revised 1991).

Formal Propositions and Corollaries of the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment

The following was excerpted from The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment by Rene V. Dawis (Bolton, 1976).

The following propositions, designed by the authors [(Dawis, Lofquist & Weiss (1968), pp. 9-11)] to serve as a basis for research, state the Theory of Work Adjustment more formally:

Proposition I. An individual's work adjustment at any point in time is indicated by his concurrent levels of satisfactoriness and satisfaction.

Proposition II. Satisfactoriness is a function of the correspondence between an individual's abilities and the ability requirements of the work environment, provided that the individuals needs correspond with the reinforcer system of the work environment.

Corollary IIa. Knowledge of an individual's abilities and of his satisfactoriness permits the determination of the effective ability requirements of the work environment.

Corollary IIb. Knowledge of the ability requirements of the work environment and of an individual's satisfactoriness permits the inference of an individual's abilities.

Proposition III: Satisfaction is a function of the correspondence between the reinforcer system of the work environment and the individual's needs, provided that the individual's abilities correspond with the ability requirements of the work environment.

Corollary IIIa. Knowledge of an individual's needs and of his satisfaction permits the determination of the effective reinforcer system of the work environment for the individual.

Corollary IIIb. Knowledge of the reinforcer system of the work environment and of an individual's satisfaction permits the inference of an individual's needs. Proposition IV. Satisfaction moderates the functional relationship between satisfactoriness and ability-requirement correspondence.

Proposition V. Satisfactoriness moderates the functional relationship between satisfaction and need-reinforcer correspondence.

Proposition VI. The probability of an individual being forced out of the work environment is inversely related to his satisfactoriness.

Proposition VII. The probability of an individual voluntarily leaving the work environment is inversely related to his satisfaction.

Combining Propositions VI and VII, we have:

Proposition VIII. Tenure is a joint function of satisfactoriness and satisfaction.

Given Propositions II, III, and VIII, this corollary follows:

Corollary VIIIa. Tenure is a function of ability-requirement and need-reinforcer correspondence.

Proposition IX. Work personality-work environment correspondence increases as a function of tenure. (pp. 234-235).

Basic Concepts of the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment

In an effort to simplify and further explain The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment, Dawis (In: Bolton, 1976), said:

Speaking at a simple level, a theory is an account of what is happening or what has happened. The Theory of Work Adjustment, then, is an account of what is happening or what has taken place in work adjustment. As an account, the theory is itself, quite simple.

Tenure, Satisfaction, and Satisfactoriness

When a person goes to work, one of the first objective observations that can be made is that he/she continues on the job for a certain length of time. Tenure, length of time on a job, is a basic concept of the Theory of Work Adjustment. Tenure implies a minimal level of work adjustment in terms of correspondence between Satisfactoriness and Satisfaction. If an employee's work adjustment were to drop below this level, then it is presumed that he/she would be let go (fired) from, or would otherwise leave (quit), the job.

Tenure, satisfaction, and satisfactoriness, then, are the basic outcomes, or dependent variables, of work adjustment. To the extent that work adjustment has taken place, tenure, satisfaction, and satisfactoriness would be manifested to some commensurate extent. That is, they are indicators of work adjustment. These indicators point to the basic factors involved in work adjustment. Satisfaction suggests factors on the individual side, while satisfactoriness suggests factors on the work side (viewing work adjustment as what happens when a person goes to work)...." (pp. 229- 230).

Concepts Linked to Measures Under the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment

The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment provided formal foundational underpinning for all worker-trait- factor job person matching systems which later emerged.

Worker Trait Factors, Worker Traits and Worker Trait Elements are operationalized as Worker Characteristic/Job Requirement component elements on the Job Satisfactoriness, Abilities, Ability Requirements and Occupational Aptitude Pattern (OAP) side of the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment equation.

Worker Interests, Temperaments, Attitudes, Satisfaction, Needs, Values and Occupational Reinforcer Patterns (ORP) are operationalized as Worker Characteristic/Job Requirement component elements on the Job Satisfaction, Worker Needs and Work Reinforcer Systems side of the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment equation.

Perhaps Dawis (Ch. 13, In: Bolton, 1976, pp. 227-248) said it best:

A formal test of a theory requires that the theory's concepts be operationalized, i.e., stated in terms precisely and specifically describing the operations by which observations are to be made in order to confirm or to disconfirm the theory or any part of it. This requirement is usually fulfilled through the use of instruments in data collection. (p. 235).

For the Theory of Work Adjustment, six instruments would be needed to make the requisite observations, measures of the following six concepts (p. 234-240):

Concepts Instruments/Measures* 1) Satisfactoriness, Minnesota Satisfactoriness Scales (MSS)

2) Satisfaction, Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ)

3) Abilities, General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) Related Extensions *Maximum Least Demonstrated Worker Traits Functioning across Successfully Demonstrated Work History, extracted using the Vocational Diagnosis and Assessment of Residual Employability (VDARE) Process which was based on Worker Traits/Job Requirements Profiles rated on HAJ behaviorally anchored Job Analysis Scales identified in the Realistic Occupational Counseling (ROC) Handbook, or the Encyclopedia of Job Requirements (EOJR). *Many Aptitude, Achievement, & Ability test results crunched with the McPLOT Program. *Physical Capacities, Environmental Tolerances rated on Handbook for Analyzing Jobs (HAJ) behaviorally anchored Job Analysis Scales. 4) Ability Requirements, Occupational Aptitude Patterns (OAPs) Related Extensions *Worker Traits/Job Requirements Profiles rated on HAJ behaviorally anchored Job Analysis Scales identified using the Realistic Occupational Counseling (ROC) Handbook, or the Encyclopedia of Job Requirements (EOJR).

5) Needs, and MN Importance Questionnaire (MIQ) Related Extensions MVQS Occupational Values & Needs Inventory

6) Reinforcer Systems MN Job Description Questionnaire (MJDQ) ~Occupational Reinforcer Patterns (ORPs) Related Extensions MVQS Vocational Interest & Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Type Indicator

Measures of satisfactoriness and satisfaction would be the outcome or criterion measures. (Tenure is an outcome variable, too, but this can be observed without the need for instrumentation.)

Measures of abilities and needs would be required to describe the person, while measures of ability requirements and reinforcer systems would be needed to describe the work environment.

To enable the measurement of correspondence, one approach would be to develop parallel measures of people and work environments; that is, measures of abilities and ability requirements should utilize the same set of ability dimensions, and likewise, measures of needs and reinforcers should utilize the same set of reinforcement dimensions. This approach was followed in the Work Adjustment Project. . . . (pp. 234~240).

* [Selected emphases and Instruments/Measures added].

Original Extensions of the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment

Work adjustment (i.e., the achieving and maintaining of individual- environmental correspondence) is an interactive process. Work adjustment mechanisms involving Correspondence, Discorrespondence, Flexibility, Activeness, Reactiveness, and Rate of Work Adjustment, on the part of both the individual and the work environment, were early extensions of the theory, which were present, operationally definable, and observable, relative to testable hypotheses regarding their impact on work adjustment over time.

The Realistic Occupational Counseling (ROC) Handbook (Wattenbarger & McCroskey, 1978) was the first private sector supplement to the 1965 Dictionary of Occupational Titles. It provided the original modal worker trait factor profiles used for work history analysis and post-injury residual employability job-person matching using the VDARE Process. The 114 modal worker trait job requirement profiles in the ROC Handbook provided the original database for the Realistic Occupational Counseling Computerized Job- Person Matching Transferable Skills Analysis (TSA) Program. The ROC TSA Program was the first worker trait factor job-person-matching program developed for use on mainframe computers at the University of Georgia (Wattenbarger & McCroskey, 1978). Other Extensions of the Theory

Research on other Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment Extensions (e.g., concepts, constructs, link relatives, occupational values and needs, vocational interests and personality reinforcer type indicators) impacting on our understanding of work adjustment have been operationally defined, studied and found supportive of Propositions identified in the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment.

Other Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment Extensions include, but are not limited to, Differential:

1) VDARE Residual Employability Profiling (McCroskey, Wattenbarger, Field & Sink, 1977. 2) Vocational Potential Profiling in SSA Disability Determination (Wattenbarger, 1981). 3) The Vocational Quotient (VQ) as a Differential Measure of Overall Job Difficulty and Maximum Vocational Potential (McCroskey & Perkins, 1981). 4) Job Value (McCroskey & Lowe, 1986, 1987). 5) Test Validity (McCroskey & Perkins, 1981; McCroskey, Streater, Timming, Wattenbarger & Lowe, 1989; 1991). 6) Job Service Work Orders Starting Wage Prediction (McCroskey & Lowe, 1987). 7) Rehabilitation Clients Return-to-Work Wage Prediction (Mayer, 1995). 8) Overall Average and Typical Starting Wage Prediction (McCroskey, 1992) 9) Earning Capacity Link Relatives (ECLRs) to Enhance Pre-Injury Earning Capacity Prediction at the Local Labor Market Level (McCroskey, 1992, 1997, 1998, 2000). 10) Earning Capacity Link Relatives (ECLRs) to Enhance Post-Injury Earning Capacity Prediction at the Local Labor Market Level. (McCroskey, 1992). 11) Six point (Mean, 10th, 25th, 50th [Median], 75th and 90th Percentile) wage earning capacity criterion- referenced relative to National Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) prediction estimates (McCroskey, Hahn & Dennis, 2001). 12) The Occupational Values and Needs Inventory (McCroskey, 2001 - modeled after the original Minnesota Importance Questionnaire and criterion-referenced relative to specific 9-digit McDOT 5th Edition DOT Job Types). 13) The Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Job Type Indicator (McCroskey, 2001 - modeled after Jung-based People Personality Types and criterion-referenced relative to specific 9- digit McDOT 5th Edition DOT Job Types, cross-walked from corresponding Jung-based People Personality Types). From Manual to Computerized Job-Person Matching

Job-Person Matching Systems initially began with manual matching systems. Botterbusch (1986) informed us that efforts to develop job-person matching systems as we know them today, actually began in the mid- 1950s when Job Service personnel developed several manual systems for matching General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) test results with jobs.

By the late 1970s, all three of Parsons (1909) informal tenets had been achieved in much detail with the arrival of the Vocational Diagnosis and Assessment of Residual Employability (VDARE) Process (McCroskey, Wattenbarger, Field & Sink, 1977).

The VDARE Process was based squarely on Proposition II and Corollary IIb with reliance on Proposition III and Corollary IIIb of the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawis, England and Lofquist, 1964; Formally restated and expounded on through supporting research by Dawis, R.V., 1976, In: Bolton, 1976).

VDARE became an effective tool in the hands of vocational experts around the country. This was especially true for Expert Witness testimony in Social Security Disability Claims, where reference to previously demonstrated work history, residual functioning, and transferable skills were major considerations [Botterbusch (1986)].

In 1978, the zeitgeist was ready for improvement and better utilization of existing job-person-matching systems through the much more efficient use of computers (McCroskey, Streater, Timming, Wattenbarger & Lowe, 1989; 1991). In 1978, the ROC TSA became the first mainframe computerized job person matching system. It was developed at the University of Georgia (Wattenbarger & McCroskey, 1978). It was used primarily as a tool for reliable vocational expert analysis of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) applicant appeal cases. Primary considerations for these analyses included age, education, past relevant work history and work restrictions stemming from medical and/or psychological disabilities. With the advent of personal computers in the early 1980s, the Datamaster Transferable Skills Analysis (TSA) Program (McCroskey, 1982) was developed, with many revisions and updates to follow (McCroskey, 1982,1983, 1985, 1987, 1989 & 1990). It was the first micro-computerized worker-trait-factor job-person matching TSA system designed specifically for use on Personal Computers. Others soon followed. Comparing Computerized Job-Person Matching Systems

Botterbusch (1983) identified, described and compared eight computerized worker-trait-factor job-person- matching systems. In his update, Botterbusch (1986) identified, described and compared 15 such programs. Brown, McDaniel, Couch and McClanahan (1994) expanded on the earlier works of Botterbusch in their publication entitled: Vocational Evaluation Systems and Software: A Consumer’s Guide.

Dennis & Dennis (1998) in their article, Job Search Software under Daubert, informed us that:

In the 1993 Daubert decision, the United States Supreme Court established scientific knowledge as the standard for admissibility for expert testimony (Feldbaum & McCroskey, 1995, Feldbaum, 1997). This standard can be anticipated to have a significant impact on psychological, rehabilitation, vocational and economic experts. One general expectation is that the instruments used to assess disabilities and predict their consequence will need to be reliable (provide consistent results), valid (measure what it is expected to measure) and accurately predict outcomes with reasonable certainty and known acceptable error rates (accuracy of predictions).

The developers of Job Search Software listed by Brown, McDaniel, Couch and McClanahan (1994) were interviewed by phone to determine the scientific attributes of their software. Where available, relevant research to their products was reviewed as well. The responses of the vendors to the possibility of Daubert restricting the use of their software were varied. All the respondents were aware of the 1993 Daubert decision. Only two programs were found to have any research regarding reliability, validity and error rate issues addressed in the Daubert decision. Some expected there to be major upheavals in the future. Others took a more conservative or wait-and-see attitude.

Dennis & Dennis (1998) found one program, the McCroskey Vocational Quotient System Transferable Skills Analysis Program (MVQS MTSP) to have 50+ validity research publications, since 1986 to date and continuing. MTSP was underpinned with on-going scientific research designed to address vitally important issues. These included Reliability, Predictive Validity, and Standard Error of Estimate rates, identified by the US Supreme Court in the Daubert decision, as being the key criteria to be used by judges in their roles as gatekeepers for determining admissibility of expert witness testimony.

Clearly, many decades of patience, research and development have begun to produce a fruitful realization of Parson’s intuitive direction. Efforts must continue with the collection, analysis and synthesis of on-going research, into renewed development of vocational theory and practice. Theories must be refined through research. New tools for more efficiently and effectively matching workers with jobs must continue to be developed and updated. New hypotheses must be empirically tested through research on those tools. Results of those studies must be published in peer-reviewed journals to keep our peers abreast of the research evidence if we are to continue understanding, refining and providing evidence of the reliability and validity of our theories to the courts and other interested parties.

The O*NET 98 Transferable Skills (TS) Paradigm

The 1998 USDOLETA-O*NET 98 Transferability of Skills Paradigm in the MVQS MTSP 1998/2000/2001 Transferable Skills Analysis (TSA) Super Sort?

In 1998, 5- or 6-character Occupational Unit Classification (OUC) Coded Transferable Skills Groups (often referred to as O*NET 98 TS Code Groups) were developed for O*NET 98. The O*NET 98/OUC TS Code Groups were derived from USDOL Occupational Employment Statistic (OES) Codes (which are identified by the first 5 digits, of the 5-digit or 6-character OUC Codes, found in Section 7, Part 2, of the MTSP 8.0R and MTSP 2000/2001 TSA Program Job Profile Reports).

OES Codes were empirically studied using Cluster Analysis for purposes of establishing O*NET 98 Transferable Skill (TS) Groups. Outliers (jobs which didn't belong) were statistically identified using Euclidean Distance Measures coupled with Ward's Minimum Variance Method (Ward, 1963) and reclassified into OES groups or subgroups, or reassigned to other groups or subgroups, as necessary to assure:

1) Belongingness (where the work activities of each 9-digit DOT coded occupation had to match the definition of the occupational category under which it was grouped),

2) Homogeneity (where differences within a single category had to be less than differences between categories and all 9-digit DOT coded occupations within a single category had to be less than differences between categories and all the 9-digit DOT coded occupations within a single category had to show consistency of skill transferability),

To accomplish Belongingness and Homogeneity, the three lone variables (MPSMS, METWA and SVP), previously used by the United States Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration (USDOLETA) to conceptually define their Old Transferability Of Skills Paradigm, were, in 1998, operationally redefined with 28 Occupational Classification Codes, Worker Traits, Temperaments and Aggregate variables in their New Expanded Transferability Of Skills Paradigm.

O*NET 98 Transferable Skills Groups As a result of the Cluster Analyses which were completed and finalized for the new O*NET 98 Transferable Skills Groupings, 1,172 Occupational Unit Classification (OUC) Groups, or, as they have become better known, O*NET 98 Code Transferable Skills (TS) Groups, were created.

O*NET Code TS Groups were based on USDOL Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Code Groups, which are identified by the first 5 digits, of each 5-digit or 6-character O*NET 98 Code TS Group. Thus, OUC/O*NET Code TS Groups are highly refined, empirically derived Transferable Skills Subgroups, within the OES Code Group Classification Structure.

Of the 1,172 identified O*NET 98 Code TS Groups, Means Data Profiles for 1,122 were reported in the US DOLETA O*NET 98 Version 1.0 Program. Researchers at Vocationology, Inc. constructed Means Data Profiles for the remaining 50 O*NET 98 Code Groups (not reported in the US DOLETA O*NET 98 Version 1.0 Program), and added two new groups (each containing only 1 job), bringing the total N to 1,174 groups. Vocationology researchers also reconstituted 12 jobs which were reclassified with different 9-digit DOT Codes by O*NET 98 researchers.

 In the McDOT2001 program, there are 12,775 specific unduplicated 9-digit DOT-Coded Jobs and 12,811, 9-digit DOT-Coded Jobs contained in the McDOT 2000 Crosswalk when duplicated jobs are included. In McDOT2001 each job has a specific worker traits/job requirements profile with respect to the 24 vocationally significant worker traits and 3 aggregate variables (VQ, SVP and ZONE).

 In the O*NET 98 Version 1.0 Viewer Program, there were 12,761, 9-digit DOT-Coded Jobs contained in the O*NET 98 DOT Crosswalk of unduplicated jobs (1,124 of which means data element profiles are not viewable in the O*NET 98 Viewer) and 12,797, 9-digit DOT-Coded Jobs contained in the O*NET 98 DOT Crosswalk, when duplicated 9-digit DOT-Coded Jobs are included.

A total of 1.3 percent of the OUC/O*NET Code TS groups (N=15) constitute 38 percent (N=4,889) of the 12,811 (counting all duplications), 9-digit DOT coded jobs. Such a large collection of jobs within so few OU Code groups drastically limits how precise you can be about specific jobs, job tasks, or work sites. The O*NET 98 Occupational Unit (OU) Code by DOT job count distribution is a grossly skewed distribution, which clearly requires job-person matching be accomplished at the job specific worker traits/job requirements profiles level, if we are to avoid overstating transferable skills for any given client.

The type of downsizing accomplished in the development of O*NET 98 (Version 1.0) Program by failing to reanalyze specific 9-digit DOT-Coded jobs was neither theoretically nor practically sound. Analyzing O*NET TS groups of jobs and reporting group means data only, may have been cost-efficient for O*NET, but their failure to collect and deliver specific job analysis data has not been good for vocational experts and related vocational professionals, who need job specific, not grouped means, data. While their development of O*NET TS Groups deserves a great deal of credit, they should have stuck with the original plan and developed a 5th edition DOT versus trying to replace it.

Figure 1: Counts of 9-Digit DOT Codes w/Duplicates (N=12,797) Across All 1,172 O*NET 98 Occupational Units (OUs) Including the 50 All Other OUs

600 p u o r G

e d o C

500 U O

T E N * O

h 400 DOTCOUNT c a e

s e d o C

300 T O D

t i g i D - 9 200

0 0 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 6 1 3 8 2 Number of O*NET 98 OU Code Groups (N=1,172) at each DOT Count MVQS2001 MTSP Transferable Skills Analysis (TSA) Valence Levels The 1998 US DOLETA-O*NET 98 Transferability of Skills Paradigm was expanded to include Percent of Transferability (Valence) and incorporated in the MTSP 8.0R Program on 10/15/98. It was included in the MTSP 2000 Transferable Skills Analysis (TSA) Super Sort on 01/01/2000. Following the very high validity findings identified in the Grimley, Williams, Hahn & Dennis (2000) validation study11, it was included as a part of the MVQS2001 MTSP Transferable Skills Analysis (TSA) Super Sort on 01/01/2001.

11 Grimley, Williams, Hahn & Dennis. (2000). Scientific Prediction of Transferable Skills. Journal of Forensic Vocationology Vol. (6)1, pp. 7-16. Simultaneously printed for broader distribution as: A Scientific Approach to Transferable Skills. (2000). Journal of Forensic Vocational Analysis. Vol. 3(1), pp. 47-54. Percent of Transferable Skills Valence Level of Transferable Skills 80 - 97% 5 - High Percentage of Skills 60 - 79% 4 - Moderate Percentage of Skills 40 - 59% 3 - Low Percentage of Skills 20 - 39% 2 - Skills Required Not Available 00 - 19% 1 - Skills Not Required The Expanded MVQS2001 MTSP Transferable Skills (TS) Paradigm

The Expanded MVQS2001 Transferability of Skills Paradigm includes consideration of the same 28 codes and scales used for developing the 1,172 O*NET TS Groups:

1) Primary Materials, Products, Subject Matter and Services (MPSMS) code, 2) Secondary Materials, Products, Subject Matter and Services (MPSMS) code, 3) Tertiary Materials, Products, Subject Matter and Services (MPSMS) code, 4) Primary Work Field: Machines, Tools, Equipment and Work Aid (MTEWA) code, 5) Secondary Work Field: Machines, Tools, Equipment & Work Aid (MTEWA) code, 6) Tertiary Work Field: Machines, Tools, Equipment and Work Aids (MTEWA) code, 7) Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP), 8) (D)ata Complexity, 9) (P)eople Complexity, 10) (T)hings Complexity, 11) General Educational Development: (R)easoning, 12) General Educational Development: (M)ath, 13) General Educational Development: (L)anguage, 14) (G)eneral Learning Ability Aptitude, 15) (V)erbal Aptitude, 16) (N)umerical Aptitude, 17) (S)patial Perception Aptitude, 18) (P) Form Perception Aptitude, 19) (Q) Clerical Perception Aptitude, 20) (K) Motor Coordination Aptitude, 21) (F)inger Dexterity Aptitude, 22) (M)anual Dexterity Aptitude, 23) (E)ye-Hand-Foot Coordination Aptitude 24) (C)olor Discrimination Aptitude 25) (D)irecting Temperament, 26) (P)eople Temperament, 27) (I)nfluencing Temperament, and 28) (E)xpressing Temperament. Theory, Reliability, Predictive Validity and Error Rates Associated with the VDARE Process and MVQS Vocational Analysis

Theoretical Underpinning: VDARE Vocational Analysis

Under the VDARE Vocational Analysis Process, Proposition I of the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment is assumed to be true, therefore:

 The VDARE Vocational Analysis Process is based squarely on Proposition II and Corollary IIb with reliance on Proposition III and Corollary IIIb of the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawis, England and Lofquist, 1964; Formally restated and expounded on through supporting research by Dawis, R.V., 1976, In: Bolton, 1976).

Theoretical Underpinning: MVQS Vocational Analysis

The MVQS Vocational Analysis Process relies heavily on the VDARE Vocational Analysis Process, and thus, under MVQS Vocational Analysis Process, Proposition I of the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment is also assumed to be true, therefore:

 The MVQS Vocational Analysis Process is also based squarely on Proposition II and Corollary IIb with reliance on Proposition III and Corollary IIIb of the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawis, England and Lofquist, 1964; Formally restated and expounded on through supporting research by Dawis, R.V., 1976, In: Bolton, 1976). Reliability, Validity and Error Rates for the VDARE Process

Research supports the following Reliability, Validity and Error Rate statistics as applicable to the VDARE Process and to the MVQS Vocational Analysis Process (which incorporates and expands VDARE using the McDOT, McPLOT and MTSP Programs), with reasonable vocational, rehabilitation economic and statistical certainty:

 Inter-Rater Reliability Using the VDARE Vocational Analysis Process - Three-Way Inter-Rater Reliability for using the VDARE Process for Residual Employability Profiling has been found to be in the Extremely High range at Rxxx=0.9944 (McCroskey, 1979).

 Predictive Validity & Known Error Rates Using the VDARE Process - In a dissertation level validation study on the VDARE Process, McCroskey (1979), found support for the implications in Proposition II, Corollary IIb, Proposition III and Corollary IIIb, that maximum least demonstrated satisfactoriness and satisfaction assumptions, reliably derived and implied (Rxxx = 0.9944) from residual employability worker traits/job requirements profiles of successful client work history, modified by medical restrictions, provided excellent prediction [(93.3% (without testing) and 96.1% (with testing) agreement, with an error rate from 3.8% (with testing) and 8.4% (without testing)] of post rehabilitation services job requirement profiles of jobs at time of placement, in which tenure ensued. A series of follow-up validation studies (Burge, 1978; Field, McCroskey, Grimes & Wattenbarger, 1978; Knowles, 1978; Reinhardt, 1978; Teal, 1978; and Wattenbarger, 1981) with similar findings regarding the validity of the VDARE Process were described in [McCroskey & Perkins (1981), pp. iii-iv & 41-44].

 Vocational Potential in SSA Disability Determination Using VDARE - In a second dissertation level validation study of the VDARE Process, Wattenbarger (1981), found support for Proposition II, Corollary IIb, Proposition III, and Corollary IIIb of the theory, that maximum least demonstrated satisfactoriness and satisfaction assumptions, reliably derived and implied from residual employability worker traits/job requirements profiles of successful client work history, modified by medical restrictions, provided excellent prediction of Social Security Administration (SSA) eligibility decisions made using the SSA Grid System. In his case review research, Wattenbarger compared independent hypothetical findings based on the VDARE Process, with actual eligibility decisions made by Georgia Disability Determination Unit (DDU) examiners. He found 67% agreement with DDU examiners Grid System based decisions and 33% disagreement with their decisions. Reliability, Validity and Error Rates for the MVQS Vocational Analysis Process

 Inter-Rater Reliability Using the MVQS Vocational Analysis Process: Three-Way Inter-Rater Reliability for using the MVQS McDOT, McPLOT and MTSP Programs in tandem has been found to be in the Extremely High range at Rxxx=0.9864 (McCroskey, Smolarski & Haskins, 1995).

 Predictive Validity and Known Error Rate Using VQ-Wage Data: Predictive Validity associated with Pre- and Post-Injury VQ-Wage Earning Capacity Predictions relative to Job Service Work Order Openings and Wage Offered data has been found to be Extremely High at around Rxy=0.91, with an error rate (SEe=$0.50/hr) of plus or minus $0.50/hr with 67% confidence and plus or minus $1.00/hr with 95% confidence. (McCroskey & Hahn, 1998, McCroskey, 2000).

 Predictive Validity & Known Error Rate Using VQ-OES Wage Data: Predictive Validity associated with Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Employment and Wage Estimates has been found to be Very High at Rxy=0.68, with a known error rate (SEe=$1.01/hr) of plus or minus $1.01/hr with 67% confidence and plus or minus $2.02/hr with 95% confidence (Dennis & McCroskey, 1999; McCroskey & Dennis, 1999). Validity Studies: The MVQS Vocational Quotient (VQ) as a Predictor of Earning Capacity

In their study, Dennis & Dennis (1998) identified one program (MVQS MTSP) with 50+ validity research publications, since 1986 to date and continuing (See graphic representations below). Researchers at Vocationology, Inc., are aggressively moving forward with on-going scientific research to address the vitally important issues pertaining to Inter-Rater Reliability, Predictive Validity, and known Standard Error of Estimate rates identified by the US Supreme Court in the Daubert decision, as being the key criteria, to be used by judges in their gatekeeper role, for determining admissibility of expert witness testimony.

Graphically displayed below are three figures summarizing the results from the majority of the 50+ studies which have been completed and presented in white paper presentations at national conferences, workshops, seminars, and/or published in books or national peer-reviewed journals between 1986 and 1999: MTSP Rxy Studies of VQ as a Predictor of Earning Capacity

0.70 t n e i c i f f 0.60 e o C

y t i d i l 0.50 a V

e v i t c i

d 0.40 e r P

y x R 0.30

0.00 t k 6 7 b b b a d a d b e h n q 7 7 8 9 7 7 7 1 1 5 5 7 7 7 7 7 9 9 w 9 9 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Year

Removal of Outliers

As reflected in the above graph, in 1997 these regression analysis studies began removing statistical Outliers (standard method, where the Actual Wage was greater than + or - 2 Standard Deviations of the Predicted Wage) from the VQ-Wage data distributions. This resulted in significant improvements in 2 predictive validity coefficients (Rxy) and coefficients of determination (R ), along with corresponding decreases in standard errors of estimates (SEE) for prediction estimates within the + or - two standard deviations of the regression line of best fit (95% Confidence Level). MTSP Rxy & R2 Studies of VQ as a Predictor of Earning Capacity

Rxy 0.50 R2

0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50

The above graph depicts the improvements in Predictive Validity (Rxy) and Coefficients of Determination (R2) achieved over time. Standard Error of Estimate (SEE) Results in Chronological Order from MTSP VQ-Wage Data Earning Capacity Studies: 1984-1997

$5.00 r

u $4.00 o H

P SEE67

a SEE95 l l o D $3.00 S U

$- 0 10 20 30 40 50 SEE Plots at the 67% and 95% Le vels of Confidence

In reviewing the above graphical representations of 50+ Predictive Validity research studies, it is clear that 2 VQ-Wage Predictive Validity Coefficents (Rxy), Coefficients of Determination (R ), and Standard Errors of Estimate (SEE) have improved over time (from High-Level in 1986, to Extremely High-Level Validity by the late 1990s). The most recent MVQS MTSP combined 7-state (California, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Virginia, Washington & Wisconsin) studies confirm these trends as continuing patterns. Using MTSP2001 Job Bank Filters to Predict State Job Types and Job Openings: Reliability, Validity and Error Rates

Data used in the analysis of the reliability, validity and error rates of using MTSP2001 Job Bank Filters to Predict State Job Types and Job Openings was collected from Work Force Development Centers covering seven States. Only the most current data available was used to assure reasonable timeliness of the prediction. The Seven State Job Bank databases containing specific MVQS 9-digit McDOT Coded Job Types and Job Openings used in this study were compiled from the seven Database Sets indicated below:

1. California Data = Fiscal Year 1999. 2. Florida Data = Program Year 1999. 3. Idaho Data = 4th quarter 1999, 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarters 2000. 4. Louisiana Data = Fiscal Year 1999. 5. Minnesota Data = 4th quarter 1997, 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarters 1998. 6. North Carolina Data = Program Year 1999. 7. Virginia Data = Fiscal Year 1999.

Tabled Summary Data

Table 1 Table 1: Actual DOTCodes vs. Predicted DOTCodes - Accuracy & Error in MVQS2001 Job Banks

CA FL ID LA MN NC VA Actual DOTCodes: 5,650 4,147 2,318 2,022 2,861 4,716 3,060 Predicted DOTCodes: 3,033 2,399 1,686 1,350 1,898 1,956 1,963 Percent Accuracy: 53.68 57.85 72.74 66.77 66.34 41.48 64.15 Percent Error: 46.32 42.15 27.26 33.23 33.66 58.52 35.85 Mean Percent of DOT Codes Accurately Predicted: 60.43 Mean Percent of DOT Codes Not Predicted (Error): 39.57

Table 2 Table 2: Actual Openings vs. Predicted Openings - Accuracy & Error in MVQS2001 Job Banks

CA FL ID LA MN NC VA Actual Openings: 1,908,434 240,961 152,721 76,887 105,625 308,025 182,733 Predicted Openings: 1,899,700 221,543 149,321 69,525 102,800 242,964 149,853 Percent Accuracy: 99.54 91.94 97.77 90.42 97.33 78.88 82.01 Percent Error: 0.46 8.06 2.23 9.58 2.67 21.12 17.99 Mean Percent of Job Openings Accurately Predicted: 91.13 Mean Percent of Job Openings Not Predicted (Error): 8.87 Table 3: MVQS MTSP2001 Job Banks Accuracy

CA FL ID LA MN NC VA Opens 99.54 91.94 97.77 90.42 97.33 78.88 82.01 Titles 53.68 57.85 72.74 66.77 66.34 41.48 64.15

Figure 1: MTSP2001 Job Banks Accuracy

MTSP2001 Job Banks Accuracy

100 y c a r 80 u c c A

t 60 n e c r

e 40 P

0 CA FL ID LA MN NC VA The Seven States Compared

Opens Titles

Conclusions

On average, MTSP2001 State Job Banks captured 60.43% of the 9-digit McDOT Coded DOT Job Types (See above, Table 1), which, on average, represented 91.13% of the Job Openings (See above, Table 2) found in the Seven State Job Banks used in this study. These findings fit normal expected representation patterns quite well and lend strong support for predictive validity generalization of the identified very high levels of validity, reliability and representative content of all MVQS MTSP2001 Job Banks.

Filename: C:\My_Documents\States7.doc The Four Jung People-based Personality Scales and Preferences typically associated with those Scales:

1. Energizing - How a person is energized12  Extroversion (E): Preference for drawing energy from the outside world of people, activities or things.  Introversion (I): Preference for drawing energy from one's internal world of ideas, emotions, or impressions. 2. Attending - What a person pays attention to  Sensing (S): Preference for using the five senses to determine what is real.  Intuition (N): Preference for using the imagination to envision what is possible - to look beyond the five senses13. 3. Deciding - How a person decides  Thinking (T): Preference for organizing and structuring information to decide in a logical, objective way.  Feeling (F): Preference for organizing and structuring information to decide in a personal, value-oriented way. 4. Living - What Lifestyle a person prefers14  Judgement (J): Preference for living a planned and organized life.  Perception (P): Preference for living a spontaneous and flexible life. Interpreting VIPR Types Relative to Jung-based People Types

The sixteen Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Types represent clusters of jobs, which Jung People-Based Personality Types of the same or similar persuasion tend to enjoy doing. The VIPR Type job reinforcers are similar to the personality reinforcer preference tendencies of the various Jung People- Based Types. It is important to remember that MTSP Job Profile Reports do not list all possible jobs under the headings, only those which match the client's post vocational potential profile.

It is very important to remember that people can, and frequently do, fill jobs in VIPR Type clusters that are dissimilar to their Jung People Personality Type... this happens all the time... and sometimes works out quite well.

VIPR Type Job Clusters are sorted in descending order of Client Values Agreement (VA) to provide clients of the same Jung People-based Personality Type, ordered lists of job matches they would typically tend to enjoy. Put another way, the Job at the top of any given VIPR Type list not only matches client Vocational Potential Profile on the 24 most vocationally significant worker traits, but would also tend to satisfy client Occupational Values and Needs more than any other job down the list.

12 Energizing is only one facet of this scale. It is also a measure of an individual's whole orientation towards either the Inner world (I) or the External world (E). 13 Jung called this unconscious perceiving. 14 Alternatively, this scale may be defined in terms of Closure - whether or not a person prefers an open- ended lifestyle. Excerpts from the US Department of the Interior (DOI) Web Site15 Describing Personality Instruments and their Potential Vocational Uses

"Personality instruments are tools that give continuing insight into ourselves and others. They are frequently used to help individuals see their preferences, potential strengths and weaknesses, and how they relate to different occupations. They can be a powerful tool in helping an individual select a potentially satisfying occupation and/or field of study.

Two of the most well-known personality instruments are the Keirsey Temperament Sorter16 and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®17. Both deal with four very strong categories for taking in and processing information, plus interacting with the world18. These instruments are based on the work of the Swiss psychiatrist, Carl Jung.

This unit uses the Keirsey Temperament Sorter to identify a basic personality type. You may then use this information to direct you to different careers.

Before completing the Keirsey, it is important to be aware of some important points:

 The Keirsey measures preferences, not skills. We can all do things we do not prefer. This is about what you do when you have your druthers.  There are no right or wrong responses, only those that fit you and those that do not!  One personality type is not better than another. Each has a richness and potential as great as the others. You are the final judge.  After you receive your 4-letter type, you'll be able to weigh whether the description fits you and make changes. Read an explanation of what the letters represent." (See next Page).

15 http://www.doi.gov/octc/personal.html 16 http://www.keirsey.com/ 17 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® is a Registered Trademark of Consulting Psychologists Press (CPP). 18 Keirsey Temperament Sorter® & AdvisorTeam FAQ #1 (Source: http://www.keirsey.com/faq/html) Question 1: Is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator the same as the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. No. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is trademarked and copyrighted by Consulting Psychological Press. The Keirsey Temperament Sorter is trademarked and copyrighted by Prometheus Nemesis Book Company Inc. They are different personality inventories. However, they are very similar in result (approximately .80 correlation) because they are both based on the work of the Psychologist, Carl Jung. The MBTI measures 4 scales of personality and categorizes individuals into 1 of 16 types using a 4 letter score. Each scale is viewed independently of the others. Dr. Keirsey believes that these four scales are not independent of each other and that the most important feature of Jung's Character Types are the two letter pairings that make up what Keirsey has popularized as Temperament. Dr. Keirsey coined the terms Artisan, Guardian, Rational and Idealist to describe these 4 main personality types. He then further subdivided the 4 temperaments into four character variants [each] and popularized the terms used to describe them [the 16 character variants]. Definitions Relating to Personality Type Letter Designations What Do Those Letters Represent...?19

Refers to how a person is energized Extraversion Introversion

Shows a preference for drawing energy from the Shows a preference for drawing energy from one's outside word of people, activities or things. internal world of emotions or impressions.

Refers to what a person pays attention to Sensing iNtuition

Shows a preference for trusting information received Shows a preference for trusting information received through the five senses and noticing what is actual. through a "sixth sense" and noticing what might be.

Refers to what a person most trusts when making a decision Thinking Feeling

Shows a preference for trusting Shows a preference for trusting logical and objective personal and value-oriented information. information.

Refers to the life style a person adopts Judgment Perception

Shows a preference for living Shows a preference for living a spontaneous and a planned and organized life. flexible life.

19 Source: Department of Interior Web Site: http://www.doi.gov/octc/scales/htm Selected Additional Background Information, Insight and Recommendations Posted on the US Department of the Interior (DOI) Web Site Regarding Connecting Personality Types With Careers and Jobs Connecting Personality Types With Careers and Jobs20

Before looking at the lists below... The lists represent careers and jobs people of various types tend to enjoy doing. The job requirements are similar to the personality tendencies of the various types. It is important to remember that these do not list all the jobs possible under the headings. And it is very important to remember that people can, and frequently do, fill jobs that are dissimilar to their personality... this happens all the time... and sometimes works out quite well.

Why then should we even consult these lists? The lists are just another tool to give you ideas about careers and jobs you might enjoy. Use the lists as [a] tool, not a box!

20 Source: U.S. Department of the Interior Web Site: http://www.doi.gov/octc/typescar.html Partial Lists of Extravert Reinforcer Careers and Jobs from the US Department of the Interior (DOI) Web Site

ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP real estate broker veterinarian conference planner systems designer chef flight attendant speech pathologist venture capitalist land developer floral designer HR development trainer actor physical therapist real estate agent ombudsman journalist stock broker child care provider clergy investment broker news reporter social worker journalist real estate agent fire fighter fundraiser newscaster real estate developer promoter athletic coach career counselor strategic planner entrepreneur musician housing director political manager pilot secretary character actor politician budget analyst receptionist marketing consultant special projects developer insurance agent special events producer musician/composer literary agent management consultant teacher: preschool artist restaurant/bar owner franchise owner teacher: elementary information-graphics technical trainer electrical engineer emergency room nurse ...designer diversity manager aircraft mechanic occupational therapist human resource manager art director technical trainer exercise physiologist merchandise planner personnel systems developer EEG technologist team trainer advertising account computer analyst radiological technician travel sales manager logistics consultant emergency medical public relations specialist dietitian/nutritionist outplacement consultant tech. waiter/waitress speech pathologist advertising creative director corrections officer labor relations mediator massage therapist radio/TV talk show host flight attendant editor/art director

ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ ESTJ nurse entertainer program designer government employee social worker recruiter attorney pharmaceutical sales caterer artist administrator auditor flight attendant newscaster office manager computer analyst bookkeeper writer/journalist chemical engineer technical trainer medical/dental assistant recreation director sales manager project manager exercise physiologist librarian logistics consultant officer manager elementary school facilitator franchise owner factory supervisor teacher politician new business developer credit analyst minister/priest/rabbi psychologist personnel manager electrical engineer retail owner housing director investment banker stockbroker officer manager career counselor labor relations regulatory compliance telemarketer sales trainer management trainer ...officer counselor travel agent credit investigator chief information special education teacher program designer mortgage broker officer merchandise planner corporate/team trainer corporate team trainer construction worker credit counselor child welfare worker environmental engineer general contractor athletic coach social worker (elderly biomedical engineer paralegal insurance agent ...services) business consultant industrial engineer sales representative interpreter/translator educational consultant budget analyst massage therapist occupational therapist personal financial planner data base manager medical secretary executive: small business network integration funeral director child care provider alcohol/drug counselor ...specialist cook bilingual education sales manager media planner/buyer security guard teacher dentist professional volunteer Partial Lists of Introvert Reinforcer Careers and Jobs from the US Department of the Interior (DOI) Web Site

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ management counseling career counselor management consultant accounting ministry psychologist economist auditing library work educational consultant scientist efficiency expert nursing special education teacher computer programmer engineer secretarial librarian environmental planner geologist curators artist new business developer bank examiners bookkeepers playwright curriculum designer organization dental hygienists novelist/poet administrator development computer operator editor/art director mathematician electricians personnel administrator information-graphics psychologist dentists paralegal ...designer neurologist pharmacist real estate agent HRM manager biomedical researcher school principals artist merchandise planner strategic planner school bus drivers interior decorator environmental lawyer civil engineer file clerk retail owner marketer intellectual properties attorney stock broker musician job analyst designer legal secretary elementary school mental health counselor editor/art director computer operator teacher dietitian/nutritionist inventor computer programmer physical therapist research informational-graphics technical writer nurse educational consultant ...designer chief information social worker architects financial planner officer personnel counselor interpreter/translator judge police officer alcohol/drug counselor real estate agent

ISTP ISFP INFP INTP surveyor bookkeeper information-graphics strategic planning fire fighter clerical supervisor ...designer writer private investigator dental assistant college professor staff development pilot physical therapist researcher lawyer police officer mechanic legal mediator architect purchasing agent radiology technologist social worker software designer chiropractor surveyor holistic health financial analyst medical technician chef ...practitioner college professor securities analyst forester occupational therapist photographer computer repair person geologist diversity manager logician race car driver landscaper designer human resource artist computer programmer crisis hotline operator ...development specialist systems analyst electrical engineer teacher: elementary employment development neurologist legal secretary beautician ...specialist physicist coach/trainer typist minister/priest/rabbi psychologist commercial artist jeweler missionary research/development carpenter gardener psychologist ...specialist paralegal potter writer: poet/novelist computer programmer dental assistant painter journalist data base manager radiological technician botanist editor/art director chemist marine biologist marine biologist organizational biologist software developer social worker development investigator ...specialist Excerpts from the Kelly Web Site21 Describing Five Personality Typologies (PTypes) and Corresponding Crosswalks of those Five Personality Typologies PType Personality Types PType Anyone is free to use any part of this chart with or Noteworthy Examples s without credit. Correspondence of five personality typologies PTypes Keirsey's Riso's PTypes Brau's personality Myers- Ennea- personality astro- type1 Briggs gram disorder4 logical type2 type3 type5

Conscientious ENFJ 1 Obsessive-Compulsive Aquarius Sensitive INFJ 4+(5) Avoidant Pisces Vigilant ENFP 6+(5) Paranoid Scorpio Dramatic INFP 4+(3) Histrionic Leo

Aggressive ENTJ 8 Sadistic Aries Idiosyncratic INTJ 5+(4) Schizotypal Aries Inventive ENTP 3+(4) Compensatory Narcissistic Gemini Solitary INTP 5+(6) Schizoid Gemini

Leisurely ESTJ 9+(8) Passive-Aggressive Taurus Serious ISTJ 9+(1) Depressive Taurus Self-sacrificing ESFJ 2 Masochistic Cancer Devoted ISFJ 6+(7) Dependent Virgo

Self-confident ESTP 3+(2) Narcissistic Capricorn Adventurous ISTP 7+(8) Antisocial Sagittarius Mercurial ESFP 7+(6) Borderline Libra Artistic ISFP 7+(6) Cyclothymic Libra References22 Cited on Kelley's Web Site for the above listed Crosswalks

21 http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Resort/5446/correspondence.html 22 Reference 1. Cf. Oldham, John M., and Lois B. Morris. The New Personality Self-Portrait: Why You Think, Work, Love, and Act the Way You Do. Rev. ed. New York: Bantam, 1995. 2. Keirsey, David, and Marilyn Bates. Please Understand Me: Character and Temperament Types. 3rd ed. Del Mar: Prometheus Nemesis, 1978. 3. Riso, Don Richard, and Russ Hudson. Personality Types: Using the Enneagram for Self-discovery. Rev. ed. New York: Houghton, 1996. 4. Cf. Millon, Theodore, and Roger Davis. Disorders of Personality: DSM-IV and Beyond. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1996. 5. Brau, Jean Louis, Helen Weaver, and Allan Edmands. Larousse Encyclopedia of Astrology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980. Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) General Job-based Personality Types with Correspondent Crosswalks to General Jung People-based Personality Type ORD23 TYPE24 DESCRIPT25 01 ESTJ Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ESTJ. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOT- Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 5,063 (39.63%) were classified ESTJ. 01 ESTJ Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ESTJ. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 689,423 (11.01%) were classified ESTJ as of 12/15/2000. 02 ISFP Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ISFP. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOT- Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 3,690 (28.88%) were classified ISFP. 02 ISFP Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ISFP. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 187,154 (2.99%) were classified ISFP as of 12/15/2000. 03 ESFP Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ESFP. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOT- Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 919 (7.19%) were classified ESFP. 03 ESFP Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ESFP. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 300,792 (4.80%) were classified ESFP as of 12/15/2000. 04 ESTP Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ESTP. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOT- Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 541 (4.23%) were classified ESTP. 04 ESTP Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ESTP. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 169,604 (2.71%) were classified ESTP as of 12/15/2000. 05 ISTJ Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ISTJ. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOT- Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 474 (3.71%) were classified ISTJ. 05 ISTJ Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ISTJ. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 662,915 (10.58%) were classified ISTJ as of 12/15/2000. 06 ESFJ Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ESFJ. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOT- Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 439 (3.44%) were classified ESFJ. 06 ESFJ Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ESFJ. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 763,261 (12.19%) were classified ESFJ as of 12/15/2000. 07 ISTP Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ISTP. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOT- Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 377 (2.95%) were classified ISTP. 07 ISTP Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ISTP. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 135,786 (2.17%) were classified ISTP as of 12/15/2000. 08 ENTJ Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ENTJ. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOT- Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 237 (1.86%) were classified ENTJ. 08 ENTJ Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ENTJ. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 198,653 (3.17%) were classified ENTJ as of 12/15/2000.

23 Order of VIPR Job Type Categories based on Frequencies of Specific Job Types within VIPR Categories. 24 VIPR General Job-based Personality Types to Jung People-based General Personality Types. 25 Descriptive Statistics for VIPR Job-based Types & Corresponding Jung People-based Personality Types. Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) General Job-based Personality Types with Correspondent Crosswalks to General Jung People-based Personality Type

ORD TYPE DESCRIPT 09 ISFJ Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ISFJ. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOT-Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 235 (1.84%) were classified ISFJ. 09 ISFJ Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ISFJ. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 605,759 (9.67%) were classified ISFJ as of 12/15/2000. 10 ENTP Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ENTP. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOT-Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 215 (1.68%) were classified ENTP. 10 ENTP Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ENTP. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 139,331 (2.22%) were classified ENTP as of 12/15/2000. 11 INTJ Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: INTJ. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOT-Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 173 (1.35%) were classified INTJ. 11 INTJ Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: INTJ. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 328,426 (5.24%) were classified INTJ as of 12/15/2000. 12 INTP Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: INTP. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOT-Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 120 (0.94%) were classified INTP. 12 INTP Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: INTP. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 193,629 (3.09%) were classified INTP as of 12/15/2000. 13 ENFJ Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ENFJ. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOT-Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 91 (0.71%) were classified ENFJ. 13 ENFJ Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ENFJ. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 465,565 (7.43%) were classified ENFJ as of 12/15/2000. 14 INFP Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: INFP. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOT-Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 90 (0.70%) were classified INFP. 14 INFP Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: INFP. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 426,896 (6.82%) were classified INFP as of 12/15/2000. 15 ENFP Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ENFP. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOT-Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 70 (0.55%) were classified ENFP. 15 ENFP Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ENFP. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 538,008 (8.59%) were classified ENFP as of 12/15/2000. 16 INFJ Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: INFJ. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOT-Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 40 (0.31%) were classified INFJ. 16 INFJ Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: INFJ. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 458,132 (7.31%) were classified INFJ as of 12/15/2000. Methodology

To accomplish the purposes of this study required the reduction of 16 sets of General Careers and Job Type lists to 16 Most Appropriate, Independent, Mutually Exclusive, sets of Specific Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Job Types

The 16 DOI lists referred to General sets of Careers and Jobs (around 21 or 22 per list). They were non- specific and contained duplicate Careers and Jobs listings within and across the 16 lists. Since duplicates were unclassifiable to a single, most appropriate, Specific Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Job Type Lists, they were eliminated. This left 11-12 non-duplicated General sets of Careers and Jobs.

Eliminating duplicate Careers and Jobs from the 16 General Careers and Jobs lists transformed them into 16 Tip of the Iceberg lists of Careers and Jobs Clusters. These Tip of the Iceberg lists were reviewed for purposes of identifying the 16 most reasonable center-of-the-cluster, mutually exclusive sets of Specific 9- digit McDOT Coded VIPR Job Types (N=23 - 43). These sets were required to re-expand each list to include up to 35 Specific VIPR Job Types with very high Transferable Skills (TS level 97) Valences.

These 16 very high TS Valence VIPR lists were then processed through MTSP using the MTSP2000 Transferable Skills (TS) Algorithm (Grimley, Williams, Hahn, & Dennis, 2000). The purpose was to establish and rank order all possible Specific VIPR Job Type lists (N=12,775 each) in descending order by TS Valence by VQ1 by SVP1 and in ascending order by McDOT Code, for the 16 lists. The final sort for Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Job-based Personality Types was completed prior to the removal of duplicates to reduce the 16 VIPR Sets of Job Types to a final N of 12,775 Specific Job Types, across the 16 Independent, Mutually Exclusive, VIPR Job Types.

Put another way, after removal of initially identified duplicates, all Specific jobs were duplicated 16 times each, with variable Transferable Skills (TS) Valence levels, relative to each of the 16 VIPR Sets of Job Types. Then, the final 16, most appropriate Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) lists of Job Types were constructed by retaining only those Specific Job Types with the highest possible TS Valence across each set of 16 job duplicates. After eliminating the 15 other jobs with duplicate or lesser TS Valences across the 16 VIPR lists, the goal of establishing the final 16 most appropriate, seemingly independent & mutually exclusive, VIPR lists of Job Types was accomplished.

Design and Development of the MVQS VIPR Job-based Type Indicator: A Criterion- Referenced, Paired Associates Jobs Typology Instrument

In designing the MVQS VIPR Job-based Type Indicator Instrument, it was decided that 108 sets of optimally balanced, paired associate VIPR Job-based Specific Job Types would be required to assure reasonable expectations of moderate to very high Test-Retest Reliability (i.e., in the Rxx=0.80-0.99 range).

Therefore, from each of the final 16 VIPR Job-based Personality Type Lists, 13-16 Specific Job Types with TS Valences of 97 were selected for inclusion in the MVQS VIPR Job-based Type Indicator sets of optimally balanced, paired associates (N=213).

The final N of 108 sets of optimally balanced, paired associates required that three additional Specific VIPR Job Types from the VIPR INFJ Set of Job Types, with slightly lower TS Valences (two with TS Valences of 94 and one with a TS Valance of 91), be incorporated. The addition of these three Specific VIPR INFJ Job Types completed the list of 216 Specific VIPR Job Types (selected across all 16 VIPR Job Types lists) required to finalize the 108 sets of optimally balanced, paired associates for the MVQS VIPR Job-based Personality Type Indicator. Following the development of 108 sets of optimally balanced, paired associates, the MVQS VIPR Job- based Personality Type Indicator instrument was placed in an MS Excel Spreadsheet complete with instructions and scoring formulas designed to yield an individualized, single-best VIPR Type for each person completing the MVQS VIPR Job-based Personality Type Indicator. This instrument was then sent via e-mail attachment to a number of Expert Vocational Practitioners for peer-review and field-testing. Results

Face and Content Validity were established by Expert Vocational Practitioners to be in the very high range for the paper and pencil version of the MVQS VIPR Job-based Personality Type Indicator during the peer-review and field-testing phase.

Suggestions for improvements were solicited from Expert Vocational Practitioners completing peer-review and field-testing of the Instrument. All recommendations from Expert Vocational Practitioners completing peer-review and field-testing of the paper and pencil version of the instrument, as well as the programming format suggestions for the MVQS VIPR Job-based Personality Type Indicator instrument to be included in the MVQS2001 McPLOT Sub-Program were reviewed and considered.

The best suggestions were selected, incorporated and implemented in the final versions of both MVQS VIPR Job-based Personality Type Indicator instruments. The paper and pencil version was printed for distribution (See next 5 pages). Programming for the MVQS VIPR Job-based Personality Type Indicator instrument to be included in the MVQS2001 McPLOT Sub-Program was initiated and completed. The MVQS VIPR Job-Based Personality Type Indicator MVQS Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Type Indicator (A McCroskey 5th Ed Dictionary of Occupational Titles (McDOT) Paired-Associates, Criterion-Referenced Test) © 2001 by Billy J. McCroskey, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved.

NAME: DATE:

Instructions: Review each Pair of Jobs and Indicate your Preference by Placing a "1" in either the "E" or "I" box.

E TITLES E I TITLES I 1 Teacher, Industrial Arts 1 Plant Pathologist 2 Production Engineer 2 Botanist 3 Machinist 3 Forester 4 Business-Enterprise Officer 4 Supervisor, Transcribing Operators 5 Director, Labor Standards 5 Jeweler 6 Teacher, Secondary School 6 Jeweler Apprentice 7 Zoo Veterinarian 7 Periodontist 8 Aerodynamicist 8 Pediatric Dentist 9 Field-Service Engineer 9 Accountant, Tax 10 Cardiopulmonary Technologist, Chief 10 Electrical-Prospecting Engineer 11 Special Procedures Technologist, CT 11 Electrical Test Engineer Scan 12 Radiologic Technologist 12 Electrical Engineer 13 Nurse Anesthetist 13 Internist 14 Teacher, Adventure Education 14 Ophthalmologist 15 Speech Pathologist 15 Family Practitioner 16 Biomedical Engineer 16 Animal Scientist 17 Tax Attorney 17 Airport Engineer 18 Lawyer 18 Hydraulic Engineer 19 Electrical Engineer, Power System 19 Aquatic Biologist 20 Induction-Coordination Power Engineer 20 Radiopharmacist 21 Mechanical-Design Engineer, Facilities 21 Statistician, Mathematical 22 Optometrist 22 Illustrator, Medical and Scientific 23 Dietitian, Teaching 23 Acupuncturist 24 Dietitian, Consultant 24 Sociologist 25 Teacher, Art 25 Occupational Therapist 26 Musician, Instrumental 26 Educational Specialist 27 Manager, Advertising 27 Writer, Prose, Fiction and Nonfiction E Score: I Score: MVQS Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Type Indicator

NAME: DATE:

Instructions: Review each Pair of Jobs and Indicate your Preference by Placing a "1" in either the "S" or "N" box.

S TITLES S N TITLES N 1 Documentation Engineer 1 Environmental Analyst 2 Contractor 2 Reliability Engineer 3 Industrial Engineer 3 Computer Systems Hardware Analyst 4 Tool Planner 4 Lawyer, Admiralty 5 Production Planner 5 Manager, Personnel 6 Economic Development Coordinator 6 Director, Industrial Relations 7 Landscape Architect 7 Chemical Engineer 8 Experimental Aircraft Mechanic 8 Protection Engineer 9 Supervisor, Personnel Clerks 9 Illuminating Engineer 10 Veterinarian, Laboratory Animal Care 10 Materials Scientist 11 Aeronautical Engineer 11 Irrigation Engineer 12 Aeronautical-Design Engineer 12 Sanitary Engineer 13 Radiologic Technologist, Chief 13 Physicist 14 Special Procedures Technologist, 14 Electro-Optical Engineer Angiogram 15 Echocardiograph Technician 15 Nematologist 16 Dentist 16 Home Economist 17 Quality Control Engineer 17 Clergy Member 18 Management Analyst 18 Dietitian, Clinical 19 Nurse Practitioner 19 Psychiatrist 20 Nurse Supervisor, Evening-or-Night 20 Medical Physicist 21 Nurse, School 21 Hearing Officer 22 Chiropractor 22 Arranger 23 Electronics Technician 23 Faculty Member, College or University 24 Athletic Trainer 24 Composer 25 Radiologist 25 Consultant, Education 26 Pediatrician 26 Broker-and-Market Operator, Grain 27 Proctologist 27 Industrial Therapist S Score: N Score: MVQS Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Type Indicator

NAME: DATE:

Instructions: Review each Pair of Jobs and Indicate your Preference by Placing a "1" in either the "T" or "F" box.

T TITLES T F TITLES F 1 Manufacturing Engineer 1 Physical Therapist 2 Chef De Froid 2 Painter 3 Welder Apprentice, Arc 3 Landscape Gardener 4 Welder, Arc 4 Automobile Mechanic 5 Machine Setter 5 Bookkeeper 6 Pharmaceutical Detailer 6 General-Ledger Bookkeeper 7 Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) 7 Aeronautical Project Engineer Techo 8 Technologist, Cardiac Catheterization 8 Aeronautical-Research Engineer 9 Polysomnographic Technician 9 Stress Analyst 10 Endodontist 10 Nurse, Head 11 Pharmacist 11 Nurse, Supervisor 12 Writer, Technical Publications 12 Mohel 13 Electrolysis-and-Corrosion-Control 13 Urologist Engineer 14 Automobile Racer 14 Obstetrician 15 Electronics Mechanic 15 Physiatrist 16 Maintainability Engineer 16 Nurse, Instructor 17 Title Attorney 17 Photojournalist 18 Lawyer, Criminal 18 Sales-Promotion Representative 19 Electrical-Design Engineer 19 Illustrator 20 Applications Engineer, Manufacturing 20 Patent Agent 21 Power-Distribution Engineer 21 Appeals Referee 22 Architect 22 Orchestrator 23 Poultry Scientist 23 Psychologist, Chief 24 Civil Engineer 24 Clinical Therapist 25 Biologist 25 Occupational Analyst 26 Physicist, Theoretical 26 Supervisor, Education 27 Plant Engineer 27 Humorist T Score: F Score: MVQS Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Type Indicator

NAME: DATE:

Instructions: Review each Pair of Jobs and Indicate your Preference by Placing a "1" in either the "J" or "P" box.

J TITLES J P TITLES P 1 Time-Study Engineer 1 Printmaker 2 Factory Lay-Out Engineer 2 Airframe-and-Power-Plant Mechanic 3 Real-Estate Agent 3 Supervisor, Dairy Farm 4 Director, Arts-and-Humanities Council 4 Assembler and Tester, Electronics 5 Director, Unemployment Insurance 5 Typing Section Chief 6 Director, Consumer Affairs 6 Sample Maker I 7 Public-Health Dentist 7 Veterinarian 8 Manager, Quality Control 8 Nurse, Private Duty 9 Manager, Records Analysis 9 Fashion Designer 10 Nurse, General Duty 10 Emergency Medical Technician 11 Nurse-Midwife 11 Ultrasound Technologist 12 Nurse, Staff, Occupational Health 12 Battalion Chief Nursing 13 Chemical-Test Engineer 13 Electrical-Research Engineer 14 Director, Media Marketing 14 Motorcycle Racer 15 District Attorney 15 Electronics-Mechanic Apprentice 16 Allergist-Immunologist 16 Power-Transmission Engineer 17 Cardiologist 17 Mechanical-Design Engineer, Products 18 Gynecologist 18 Mechanical Engineer 19 Railroad Engineer 19 Chemist 20 Dairy Scientist 20 Chemist, Food 21 Transportation Engineer 21 Statistician, Applied 22 Director of Institutional Research 22 Doctor, Naturopathic 23 Community Dietitian 23 Graduate Assistant 24 Social Worker, School 24 Counselor, Nurses' Association 25 Job Analyst 25 Planner, Program Services 26 Playwright 26 Clinical Psychologist 27 Screen Writer 27 Counselor J Score: P Score: MVQS-VIPR Type Indicator Results NAME: DATE: (E)xtroversion Score: (I)ntroversion Score:

(S)ensing Score: I(N)tuiting Score:

(T)hinking Score: (F)eeling Score:

(J)udgement Score: (P)erception Score: MVQS-VIPR TYPE <-:Insert Highest Letter Scores from each above pair (e.g. INTJ). Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations

Clearly, many decades of patience, research and development have begun to produce a fruitful realization of Parson’s informal, yet intuitive, direction. Efforts must continue with the collection and synthesis of on- going research into renewed development and refining of our tools, methods, procedures, theories and standards for vocational practice.

1) Theories must be refined through research.

2) New tools for more efficiently and effectively matching workers with jobs must continue to be developed and updated.

3) New hypotheses must be empirically tested through research on those tools.

4) The results of our studies must be published in peer-reviewed journals to keep our peers abreast of mounting research evidence and the need to update our standards for vocational practice.

As we increase our own understanding through scientific research:

 Developing and refining our tools, methods, procedures, theories and standards for vocational practice will become more routine, and

 Providing credible evidence of the reliability and validity of our tools, methods, procedures, theories and standards for vocational practice, to the courts and other interested parties, will become more second nature.

Face and Content Validity were established by Expert Vocational Practitioners to be in the very high range for the paper and pencil version of the MVQS VIPR Job-based Personality Type Indicator during the peer-review and field-testing phase. Additional studies to more firmly establish expected moderate to high level Test-Retest Reliability and Predictive Validity for both the paper and pencil and machine versions of the MVQS VIPR Job-based Personality Type Indicator instruments are recommended. Studies are currently in the research design phase and should be completed in the near future. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allan, Ross. (1999). Connecting Personality Types With Careers and Jobs. US Dept. of the Interior: http://www.doi.gov/octc/typescar.html. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 42 U.S.C.A. SS 12101 et. seq. (West, 1993). Anderson, L. E. (1997). Chapter 5: Education, training, experience, and licensure/ certification: Evidence for the reliability and validity of the measures. In O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume I, N. G. Peterson, M.D. Mumford, W.C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A. Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin eds. Utah Department of Workforce Services, 5-1 to 5-25. Anderson, L. M. (1969). Longitudinal changes in level of work adjustment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Arad, S., Hanson, M. A. & Schneider, R. J. (1997). Chapter 8: Organizational context: Evidence for the reliability and validity of the measures. In O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume II, N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A. Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin eds. Utah Department of Workforce Services, 8-1 to 8-38. Benjamin, D. M. (1995). Preparing to Testify. Experts Quarterly, Issue No. 1. Chestnut Hill, Mass: Author. Bertram v. Wunning 417 S.W.2d. 120 (MO. App. 1967). Bolton B. F. (ed.). (1976). Handbook of Measurement and Evaluation in Rehabilitation. Baltimore: University Park Press. Borland International. (1994). Borland Paradox for Windows 5.0. Scotts Valley, CA: Borland International, Inc. Borman, W. C. & Kubisiak, U. C. (1997). Chapter 11: Work Styles: Evidence for the reliability and validity of the measures. In O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume II, N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A. Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin eds. Utah Department of Workforce Services, 11-1 to 11-17. Borman, W.C., Jeanneret, P. R., Kubisiak, U. C. & Hanson, M. A. (1997). Chapter 6: Generalized work activities: Evidence for the reliability and validity of the measures. In O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume I, N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A. Fleishman, & K. Y. Levin eds. UT Dept. of Workforce Svcs, 6-1 to 6-27. Borow, H. (1964). An integral view of occupational theory and research. In: H. Borow (Ed.). Man in a World at Work. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Borow, H. (Ed.). (1964). Man In a World of Work. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Botterbusch, K. F. & Michael, N. (1985). Testing and test modification in vocational evaluation. Menomonie, WI: Materials Development Center, University of Wisconsin-Stout. Botterbusch, K. F. (1982). A Manual of DOT Related Codes. Menomonie, WI: Materials Development Center, University of Wisconsin-Stout. Botterbusch, K. F. (1983). A Comparison of Computerized Job Matching Systems (1st ed.). Menomonie, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Stout, Rehabilitation Institute, Materials Development Center. Botterbusch, K. F. (1986). A Comparison of Computerized Job Matching Systems (2nd ed.). Menomonie, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Stout, Rehabilitation Institute, Materials Development Center. Botterbusch, K. F. (1987). Vocational assessment and evaluation systems: A comparison. Menomonie, WI: University of Wisconsin-Stout, Rehabilitation Institute, Materials Development Center. Brau, Jean Louis, Helen Weaver and Allan Edmands (1980). Larousse Encyclopedia of Astrology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Brown, C., McDaniel, R., Couch, R. & McClanahan, M. (1994). Vocational Evaluation Systems and Software: A Consumer’s Guide. Menomonie, WI: Materials Development Center. 69-124. Burge, M. J. (1978). Comparing 1977 Evaluations at Goodwill Industries of the Southern Piedmont, Inc., with VDAREs. Unpublished Masters Research Project, Athens GA: University of Georgia. Buros, O. K., (Ed.). (1938, 1941, 1949, 1953, 1959, 1965, 1972, 1978). Mental Measurements Yearbook, Editions 1-8. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute on Mental Measurement. Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally. Canada Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1980) Standard Industrial Classification Codes for Canada. Ontario, Canada, Govt. Printing Office. Canada Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1996) Canada Wages by SIC CTI Industry: 1980-83, 84, 85, . . . 94. Ontario, Canada, Govt. Printing Office (Electronic File Date: 2/29/96). Christerson, B. B. (1997). COMPASS. Tucson, AZ: Valpar, Inc. Colvin, C. R. (1972). The role of a vocational expert in the Social Security Administration's Bureau of Hearings and Appeals. In: U.S. DHEW, SSA, BHA (SSA #72-10284), Forensic Psychology and Disability Adjudication: A Decade of Experience. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, pp. 197-198. Costanza, E. P., Fleishman, E. A. & Marshall-Mies, J. C. (1997). Chapter 4: Knowledges: Evidence for the reliability and validity of the measures. In O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume I, N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A. Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin eds. Utah Department of Workforce Services, 4-1 to 4-26. Cronbach, L. J. (1960). Essentials of Psychological Testing, 2nd edition. New York: Harper & Row. Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of Psychological Testing, 3rd edition. New York: Harper & Row. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (113 S. Ct. 2786, 1993). Dawis, R. V. (1976). The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment. In Bolton (ed.) Handbook of Measurement and Evaluation in Rehabilitation. Baltimore: University Park Press, 227-248 Dawis, R. V., England, G. W. & Lofquist, L. H. (1964). A Theory of Work Adjustment. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, No. XV. Industrial Relations Center, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Dawis, R. V., Lofquist, L. H. & Weiss, D. J. (1968). A Theory of Work Adjustment: A Revision. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, No. XXIII. Industrial Relations Center, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Dennis, K. L. & McCroskey, B. J. (1997). The Occupational Information Network (O*NET). Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 2(1), 1-29. Dennis, K. L. & McCroskey, B. J. (1999). O*NET validity under Daubert. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 5(1), 49-74. Dennis, K. L. & McCroskey, B. J. (2000). Predicting Earning Capacity in Indiana. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 6(1), 97- 106. Dennis, K. L. & Tichauer, G. (1998). Replicating Vocational Quotient (VQ) Wage Earning Capacity Predictions in Nebraska. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 4(1), pp. 85-92. Dennis, M. L. & Dennis, K. L. (1998). Job Search Software under Daubert. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 4(1), pp. 1-10. Dennis, M. L. & Dennis, K. L. (1998). Job Search Software under Daubert: Will It Withstand Scrutiny as Part of Expert Opinion. Journal of Forensic Vocational Assessment, 1(3), pp. 19-28. Dennis, M. L. & Dennis, K. L. (1998). Replicating Vocational Quotient (VQ) Earning Capacity Predictions in Wisconsin. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 4(1), pp. 61-68. Dennis, M. L., McCroskey, B. J. & Dennis, K. L. (1998). Work Release, Meaningful Employment and Reasonable Earning Capacity. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 4(1), pp. 53-60. Dillman, E. G. (1990). Earnings by Education: 1987. Economic Insights. (03/90). El Paso, TX: Author, pp. 1-4. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Inc. v. C. R. Robinson Et Al. (1995). No. 94-0843, 38, 852-861 Tex. S. Ct, 1995, (excluded expert testimony from a Horticulturist, holding that Rule 702 requires expert testimony to be relevant and reliable, and that the Horticulturist's testimony and opinions were not reliable). Farr, J. M., Ludden, L. & Mangin, P. (1998). Appendix C, Phase I: Developing Homogeneous Occupations for O*NET. In: The O*NET Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Indianapolis, IN: JIST Works, Inc., pp. 573-579. Federal Civil Judicial Procedure and Rules. (1995). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company. Federal Courts Study Committee. (1990). Report of the Federal Courts Study Committee 97. Washington DC: GPO. Feldbaum, C. L. & McCroskey, B. J. (1995). Expert Testimony: Evolving Vocational and Rehabilitation Economic Technologies, Federal Rules of Evidence and the Daubert Decision. Journal of Vocationology, 1(1), pp. 1-5. Feldbaum, C. L. (1997). The Daubert Decision and Its Interaction with the Federal Rules. Journal of Forensic Vocational Assessment, 1(1), pp. 9-73. Field, T. F., McCroskey, B. J., Grimes, J. W. & Wattenbarger, W. E. (1978). A Comparison of Vocational Recommendations of the RCEP Masters Students Receiving VDARE Training with those of Vocational Experts and Certified Rehabilitation Counselors. Submitted to VEWAA Bulletin, November, 1978. Fishback v. People, 851 P.2d 884, 889 (Colo. 1993). Flanagan v. State, 625 So. 2d 827, 829-29 (Fla. 1993). Fleishman, E. A., Costanza, D. P. & Marshall-Miles, J. C. (1997). Chapter 9: Abilities: Evidence for the reliability and validity of the measures. In O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume II, N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A. Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin eds. Utah Department of Workforce Services, 9-1 to 9-21. Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 - 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95(1), 29-51. Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 171-191. Fredlund, M. C. (1997). Advocate Software: Personal Injury-Economist Series for Windows. Walnut Creek, CA. Frye v. United States. (1923). 54 App. DC 46, 293 F. 1013. Ghiselli, E. E. (1966). The Validity of Occupational Aptitude Tests. Wiley, New York. Grimley, Williams, Hahn & Dennis. (2000a). Scientific Prediction of Transferable Skills. Journal of Forensic Vocationology Vol. 6(1), Fall, 2000, pp. 7-16. Grimley, Williams, Hahn & Dennis. (2000b). A Scientific Approach to Transferable Skills. Journal of Forensic Vocational Analysis. Vol. 3(1), pp. 47-54. Hahn, S. J. & Wells-Moran, J. (1998). Washington State VQ-Wage Earning Capacity Predictive Validity Generalization. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 4(1), pp. 79-84. Hahn, S. J. (1997). An Independent Replication of the McCroskey Vocational Quotient (VQ) as a Predictor of Earning Capacity. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 3(1), pp. 29-33. Hahn, S. J., Larkin, S. & Dennis, K. L. (2000). Florida State McDOT 2000 VQ1-Wage Earning Capacity Predictive Validity Generalization Follow-up Study. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 6(1), pp. (TBD). Hahn, S. J., Larkin, S. & Williams, J. M. (2000). Florida State McDOT 1998 VQ-Wage Earning Capacity Predictive Validity Generalization. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 6(1), pp. (TBD). Heaton, R. K., Marcotte, T. D., White, D. A., Ross, D., Meredith, K., Taylor, M. J., Kaplan, R. & Grant, I. (1996). Nature and Vocational Significance of Neuropsychological Impairment Associated with HIV Infection. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 10(1), pp. 1-14. Iacobelli Construction, Inc. v. County of Monroe, 32 F.3d 19, 25 (2d Cir. 1994) (concluding that Daubert addressed only junk science cases and is inapplicable to construction litigation). Janikowski, T. P., Bordieri, J. E. & Musgrave, J. R. (1990). Construct Validation of the Academic Achievement and General Educational Development Subtests of the Microcomputer Evaluation Screening and Assessment (MESA). Vocational Evaluation and Work Adjustment Bulletin, Spring, 1990, pp. 11-16. JOBQUEST. (1996). JOBQUEST Data References and Updates. Spokane, WA: JobQuest. Jung, C.G. (1971). Psychological Types. (A Revision by R.F.C. Hull of the Translation by H.G. Baynes). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Keirsey, David M. (1998). Please Understand Me II: Temperament Character Intelligence. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. Keirsey, David M. (2000). Keirsey Temperament Distributions: Distribution of Types taking the Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on Keirsey Temperament Web Site. http://www.keirsey.com/ DLU: 12/15/2000. Keirsey, David, and Marilyn Bates (1978). Please Understand Me: Character and Temperament Types. 3rd ed. Del Mar: Prometheus Nemesis. Kelly, Dave. (1999). Correspondence of Five Personality Typologies. http://www.geocities.com/ptypes/. Knowles, P. S. (1978). The Utilization of Vocational History in the Vocational Evaluation Process. Unpublished Masters Research Project, Athens GA: University of Georgia. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd., et al v Carmichael et. al, No., 97-1709, 131 F.3d 1433, reversed, S. Ct. (1999). Lappe v. American Honda Motor Co., 857 F. Supp. 222, 228 (N.D.N.Y. 1994) (admitting expert testimony in products liability action because Daubert only prescribes judicial intervention for expert testimony approaching the outer boundaries of traditional scientific and technological knowledge). Loch, C. (1994). Compute-A-Match: Manual of Research and Norm Studies. Pleasantville, NY: Progressive Evaluation Systems. Lofquist, L. H. & Dawis, R. V. (1969). Adjustment to Work: A Psychological View of Man's Problems in a Work-oriented Society. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York. LRP Publications. (1993, 1994, 1995). The Testifying Expert. Horsham PA: LRP Publications. Matarazzo, J. D. (1972). Wechsler's measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence (5th ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Mayer L. L. (1998). Admissibility of Vocational Expert Testimony Post-Daubert: A Statistical Validation of the Vocational Quotient as a Predictor of Labor Market Entry Wage. Journal of Forensic Vocational Assessment. Vol. 1(3), pp. 3-17. Mayer, L. L. (1995). Effects of the sources of evaluative data upon wage of Status 26 rehabilitative clients. (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Microfilm, No. 0526513). Walden University, 1994/1995, Minneapolis, MN. McCroskey, B. J. & Dennis, K. L. (1999). O*Net Issues for Rehabilitation Economists. The Earnings Analyst Journal of the American Rehabilitation Economics Association, Vol. 2(1), pp. 23-34. McCroskey, B. J. & Dennis, K. L. (2001). Emotional Trauma: Its Impact on Vocational Analysis. An article submitted simultaneously for broader Peer-Review and Publication consideration to: The ABVE Journal of Forensic Vocational Analysis and the Journal of Forensic Vocationology (Winter, 2001). McCroskey, B. J. & Feldbaum C. L. (1995). Statistical Basics Revisited for Vocational Evaluation and Earning Capacity Analysis under Daubert: A Need for Forensic Standards. Journal of Vocationology, Vol. 1(1), pp. 6-8. McCroskey, B. J. & Hahn, S. J. (1995). The Validity of the Vocational Quotient as a predictor of Calendar Year (CY) 1994 starting wages in Minnesota: Study #1. Journal of Vocationology, 1(1), pp. 9-13. McCroskey, B. J. & Hahn, S. J. (1997). The Vocational Quotient (VQ) as a Predictor of Earning Capacity. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 3(1), pp. 1-27. McCroskey, B. J. & Hahn, S. J. (1997, 1998) Linear Regression Analysis of United States Trends in Average Annual Pay: 1984 to 2001. Unpublished Research. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc. McCroskey, B. J. & Hahn, S. J. (1998). The Vocational Quotient (VQ) as a Predictor of Earning Capacity: 1996-97 Criterion- Referenced Validity Follow-up Studies. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 4(1), pp. 11-52. McCroskey, B. J. & Lowe, J. K. (1985). Linear Regression Analysis of the Relationship between Job VQs and Job Wages in the US Economy: Using Job VQs to Predict Job Values. Unpublished Research, Authors. McCroskey, B. J. & Lowe, J. K. (1986). How Much Is Your Job Worth? Limited Edition. Minneapolis: Money Pot. McCroskey, B. J. & Lowe, J. K. (1987) Linear Regression Analysis of the Relationship Between Job VQs and Job Wages in the US Economy: Using Job VQs to Predict Job Values. Unpublished Research, Authors. McCroskey, B. J. & Lowe, J. K. (1987). How Much Is Your Job Worth? Revised Edition. Minneapolis: Money Pot. McCroskey, B. J. & Perkins, E. (1981). Manual for the McCroskey Vocational Quotient System, pp. 28-31, 37, 63. McCroskey, B. J. & Wattenbarger, W. E. (1977). The Vocational Diagnosis and Assessment of Residual Employability (VDARE) Process Worksheet. Athens, GA: Authors. McCroskey, B. J. (1979). The Effects Of Source Of Evaluative Data, Severity Of Client Disability, And Client Age Group On The Degree To Which Clients’ Residual Employability Profiles Match Their Actual Employment Outcome Profiles. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens. McCroskey, B. J. (1979, 1980). Multiple Regression and Frequencies Data on 1977 USDOL Job Analysis Data. Mississippi State, MS: Unpublished Post-Doctoral Research, Author. McCroskey, B. J. (1979a, 1979b, 1979c, 1979d). The Encyclopedia of Job Requirements (EOJR, Volumes 1-4). Mississippi State: Mississippi State University Computer Science Center. McCroskey, B. J. (1980). Multiple Regression and Frequencies Data on 1977 USDOL Job Analysis Data. Mississippi State, MS: Unpublished Post-Doctoral Research, Author. McCroskey, B. J. (1980, 1981, 1983, 1986, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000). The Encyclopedia of Job Requirements (Volumes 1-4). Reprinted, (1981); Reprinted, (1983, 1986). Revised and reprinted, (1990, 1992). EOJR Volume 1, revised and electronically reprinted within the McDOT 6.1–7.1 Program Series, (1994, 1995). Revised and electronically stored in McDOT 7.11R – 2000 Program Series, Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc. (1996, 1997, 1998 & 2000, respectively). McCroskey, B. J. (1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989 & 1990). Manuals for the Datamaster I, II, III, IV & 4p2g Programs (Microcomputer-Assisted Job-Person Matching System Specifically Designed for Use with the McCroskey Vocational Quotient System). Minneapolis, Minnesota: Vocationology, Inc. Program Series, Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc. (1996, 1997, 1998 & 2000, respectively). McCroskey, B. J. (1982,1983, 1985, 1987, 1989 & 1990). The MVQS Datamaster Job-Person Matching System (Versions 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.0+, 4.0+ and 4p2g). Minneapolis & St. Paul, MN: Vocationology, Inc. McCroskey, B. J. (1991, 1992a, 1992b, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 & 2000). The McCroskey TestPlot Program (McPLOT) Vers. 6.0 and 6.1, (1991). Revised to Vers. 6.2, (1/92). Upgraded to Vers. 7.0 with McDOT 7.0 and McPLOT 7.0 Program Components, (4/92). Revised to Vers. 7.11, (4/13/95). Revised and upgraded to Vers. 7.11R, (6/96). Revised and upgraded to Version 8.0, 8.0R & 2000, Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc., (06/97, 10/15/98 & 01/01/2000, respectively). McCroskey, B. J. (1991, 1992a, 1992b, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2000). The McCroskey Dictionary of Occupational Titles (McDOT). Vers. 6.0 and 6.1, (1991). Revised to Vers. 6.2, (1/92). Upgraded to Vers. 7.0, (4/92). Revised to Vers. 7.11, (4/95). Revised and upgraded to Vers. 8.0, 8.0R & 2000, Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc., (6/97, 10/15/98 & 01/01/2000, respectively). McCroskey, B. J. (1991, 1992a, 1992b, 1995a, 1995b, 1996, 1997, 1998 & 2000). The McCroskey Transferable Skills Program (MTSP) Versions 6.0 and 6.1, (1991). Revised to Vers. 6.2, (1/92). Upgraded to Vers. 7.0, (4/92). Revised to Vers. 7.11, (4/95). Revised to Vers. 7.11, (8/95). Revised to Vers. 7.11R, (7/96). Revised and upgraded to Vers. 8.0, (6/97). Revised to Vers. 8.0R, Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc., (01/01/98). Revised to Vers. 2000, Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc., (01/01/2000). McCroskey, B. J. (1992). The Validity of the Vocational Quotient as a Predictor of Starting Wage Earning Capacity. The Vocationologist, 1(1), pp. 23-24. McCroskey, B. J. (1995). Emergence of Standards in Vocational Technology. The Vocationologist, 2(1), pp. 4-12. McCroskey, B. J. (1995). McDOT, McPLOT and MTSP 7.0 Arrive for 1995. The Vocationologist, 2(1), pp. 1-4. McCroskey, B. J. (1995). The Validity of the Vocational Quotient as a Predictor of Pre-and Post-Injury Earning Capacity. White paper presented at the American Rehabilitation Economic Association, Atlanta, GA, 5/7/95. McCroskey, B. J. (1995). White Paper Re: MN CY 1994 VQ-Wage data presented at the American Rehabilitation Economics Association National Conference in Atlanta, GA, Fall, 1995. McCroskey, B. J. (1996). 1977-1987 SIC Code to 9-Digit McDOT Code Crosswalk Database. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc. McCroskey, B. J. (1996a). The ECLRBOOK. Minneapolis, MN: Vocationology, Inc. McCroskey, B. J. (1996b). The SIC CODEBOOK: MTSP 7.11R SIC CODE Links To US Yellow Page Business/Industry Headings. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc. McCroskey, B. J. (1997). The McCroskey Dictionary of Occupational Titles Program (McDOT). Version 8.0: Mini-Manual and Quick Start Guide. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc. McCroskey, B. J. (1997). The McPLOT 8.0 Program Mini-Manual and Quick Start Guide. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc. McCroskey, B. J. (1997). The MTSP 8.0 Mini-Manual for the Full and Demo Versions of the McCroskey Transferable Skills Program (MTSP) Version 8.0. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc. McCroskey, B. J. (1997a) The 1996-1998 ECLRBOOK. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc. Revised (11/27/97) to The Revised 1996-1998 ECLRBOOK. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc. McCroskey, B. J. (1997b). The McCroskey Dictionary of Occupational Titles Program (McDOT). Version 8.0: Mini-Manual and Quick Start Guide. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc. McCroskey, B. J. (1997c). The McPLOT 8.0 Program Mini-Manual and Quick Start Guide. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc. McCroskey, B. J. (1997d). The MTSP 8.0 Mini-Manual for the Full and Demo Versions of the McCroskey Transferable Skills Program (MTSP) Version 8.0. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc. McCroskey, B. J. (1998) The 1998-2000 ECLRBOOK. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc. McCroskey, B. J. (1998). The MTSP 8.0R Mini-Manual for the Full and Demo Versions of the McCroskey Transferable Skills Program Version 8.0R. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc. McCroskey, B. J. (2001). Classification of 12,775 McDOT Jobs into 16 MVQS Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Types with Jung-based Personality Type Correspondents Cross-Walk. Electronically published in the McCroskey 5th Ed. Dictionary of Occupational Titles - Extended Data Set Edition. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc. McCroskey, B. J., Bohlke, D. & Streater, S. E. (1995). Re-calibrated Earning Capacity Link Relatives (ECLRs) For the MTSP 7.11R Program: Study #4. Journal of Vocationology, 1(1), pp. 36-45 & pp. 56-63. McCroskey, B. J., Dennis, M. L. & Dennis, K. L. (1998). Geographic Location and the Vocational Quotient (VQ) Prediction of Earning Capacity. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 4(1), pp. 69-78. McCroskey, B. J., Feldbaum C. L., Dennis, K. L. & Hahn, S. J. (1998). Statistical Foundations for Human Services Assessment in Light of the Daubert Decision. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, Vol. 4(1), pp. 93-100. McCroskey, B. J., Hahn, S. J., Dennis, K. L. & Streater, Scott E. (1995). VQ as a Predictor of FY 1994 Wisconsin Starting Wages: Study #3. Journal of Vocationology, 1(1), pp. 26-27, 35. McCroskey, B. J., Hahn, S. J., Lowe, J. K. & Dennis, K. L. (2001). The McCroskey Vocational Quotient System (MVQS) Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Job-based Personality Type Indicator and MTSP Jobs-Based Vocational Interest Personality Types Crosswalk to Jung People-Based Personality Types. An article submitted simultaneously for broader Peer-Review and Publication consideration to: The ABVE Journal of Forensic Vocational Analysis and the Journal of Forensic Vocationology (Winter, 2001). McCroskey, B. J., Hahn, S. J., Lowe, J. K. & Dennis, K. L. (2001). The McCroskey Vocational Quotient System (MVQS) Theory of Transferable Skills: Revised, Extended and Updated for the 21st Century. An article submitted simultaneously for broader Peer-Review and Publication consideration to: The ABVE Journal of Forensic Vocational Analysis and the Journal of Forensic Vocationology (Winter, 2001). McCroskey, B. J., Male, R. & Frank, D. (1995). A Curvilinear Approach for Estimating Present Value Benefits-to-Pay Ratios from US Income Trends 1959-91: Study #5. Journal of Vocationology, 1(1), pp. 46-49. McCroskey, B. J., Smolarski, R., & Haskins, R. D. (1995). Three-Way Inter-Rater Reliability Using MVQS McDOT, McPLOT & MTSP Computerized Job-Person Matching Program Components: Parts 1 & 2. Journal of Vocationology. 1(1), pp. 67-68. McCroskey, B. J., Streater, S. E., Timming, R. C., Wattenbarger, W. & Lowe, J. K. (1989, 1991a, 1991b, 1992). Job-Person Matching Inputs from the Portable Assessment System-1, Simulated Work Environment Ability Tester: Safety Aspects, Content, and Construct Validity Monograph. Minneapolis, MN: Vocationology, Inc. Reprinted 1991, in: The American Journal of Physical Therapy, pp. 30-76. Reprinted 1991, in: The Vocational Expert, Vol. 8(1), pp. 5-10. Reprinted 1992, in: The American Board of Vocational Experts Monograph, pp. 40-86. McCroskey, B. J., Wattenbarger, W. E., Field T. & Sink, J. (1977). The Vocational Diagnosis and Assessment of Residual Employability (VDARE) Process Worksheet. Athens, GA: Authors. McCroskey, B. J., Wattenbarger, W., Field, T. F. & Sink, J. M. (1977, 1979). The Vocational Diagnosis and Assessment of Residual Employability Handbook. Athens, Ga.: Authors. Reprinted in the VDARE Training Manual, Roswell, GA: VDARE Services Bureau, 1979. McCroskey, B. J.; Streater, S. E.; Wattenbarger, W. E.; Feldbaum, C. L. & Dennis, K. L. (1997). Analyzing employability using worker trait factors: Past, present and future. The Journal of Forensic Vocational Assessment, 1(1), pp. 7-39. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two, or some limits on our capacity to process information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 555-564. Millon, Theodore, and Roger Davis (1996). Disorders of Personality: DSM-IV and Beyond. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley. Minnesota Department of Economic Security. (1996). Minnesota Calendar Year (CY) 1996 (01/01/96-12/31/96) Job Service Work Orders 9-Digit DOT Coded Position Openings and Wage Offers Data by County. Saint Paul, MN: Office of Research and Statistical Analysis. Minnesota Department of Economic Security. (1997). Minnesota Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 (09/01/96-08/31/97) Job Service Work Orders 9-Digit DOT Coded Position Openings and Wage Offers Data by County. Saint Paul, MN: Office of Research and Statistical Analysis. Mumford, M. D. & Peterson, N. G. (1995). Chapter 3: Skills. In Development of Prototype Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Content Model by Peterson, N. G.; Mumford, M. D.; Borman, W. C.; Jeanneret, P. R. & Fleishman, E. A. eds. UT Dept. of Workforce Svcs, 3-8, 3-59. Mumford, M. D., Peterson, N. G. & Childs, R. A. (1997). Chapter 3: Basic and cross-functional skills: Evidence for the reliability and validity of the measures. In O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume I, N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A. Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin eds. Utah Department of Workforce Services, 3-1 to 3-34. Oldham, John M., and Lois B. Morris (1995). The New Personality Self-Portrait: Why You Think, Work, Love, and Act the Way You Do. Rev. ed. New York: Bantam. Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation No., 92-1995 (3rd Cir, 8/31/94). Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a Vocation. (1st ed.); Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. People v. Leahy, 882 P.2d 321, 331 (Cal. 1994). People v. Wesley, 633 N.E.2d 451, 456 (NY Ct. App. 1994). Peterson, N. G, Mumford, M. D. Levin, K. Y., Green, J. & Waksberg, J. (1997). Chapter 2: Research method: Development and field-testing the content model.. In O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume II, N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A. Fleishman, & K. Y. Levin eds. UT Dept of Workforce Svcs, 2-1 to 2-51. Psychological Corporation. (1974). Test Service Bulletin Number 48. Chart Comparing Various Test Scores and Their Correspondence to Each Other [Under the Normal or Bell Curve]. New York: The Psychological Corporation. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. (2000) Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center. Reinhardt, B. (1978). A Correlation Study between Jobs Recommended for Clients and Jobs Actually Held by the Clients. Unpublished Masters Research Project, Athens GA: University of Georgia. Riso, Don Richard, and Russ Hudson (1996). Personality Types: Using the Enneagram for Self-discovery. Rev. ed. New York: Houghton. Ross, D. R. (1990). An Early Intervention Assessment Model for the Vocational Rehabilitation of Social Security Disability Benefit Applicants. Social Security Administration R & D Project (Grant No.: 13-P-10017-9-02). Rubinfeld, D.L. (1994). Reference guide on multiple regression. In: Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. (1994). New York: Federal Judicial Center & Carnegie Corporation of New York, 417-469. Sager, C. E. (1997). Chapter 10: Occupational interests and values: Evidence for the reliability and validity of the measures. In O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume II, N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A. Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin eds. Utah Department of Workforce Services, 10-1 to 10-31. Schuh, A. J. (1967). The Predictability of employee tenure: A review of the literature. Pers. Psych. 20:133-152. Shahnasarian, M. and Lassiter, D. (2002). Attorney perceptions of vocational evaluation methodologies. The Rehabilitation Professional 10(1), pp. 38-43. Shartle, C. L. (1964). Occupations, workers, and classification systems. In: H. Borow (Ed.). Man in a World at Work. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Stern, P. (1994). Science in the Courtroom: From the Frye-Pan to the Fire. Violence Update, Vol. 4(12). Streater, S. E. (1987). A Comparative Analysis of Subtest Results: the 1978 Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) Versus the 1984 Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised (WRAT-R). Unpublished Dissertation. American College of Vocational Experts, Nashville, TN. Streater, S. E. (2000). People Who Don't Count Won't Count. The Vocational Expert, 17(1), [Middle Insert]. Strong, M. H., Jeanneret, P. R., McPhail, S. M. & Blakley, B. R. (1997). Chapter 7: Generalized work activities: Evidence for the reliability and validity of the measures. In: O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume II, N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A. Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin eds. Utah Department of Workforce Services, 7-1 to 7-32. Sparks v Consolidated Rail Corporation No. 94-CV-1917 (E.D. PA. 1995). Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests and Manuals-Revised. (1993). American Psychological Association. State v Carter, 524 N.W.2d No. S-93-777 (NE, l994). State v Cauthron, 846 P.2d 502, 505 (Wash. 1993). State v. Alt, 504 N.W.2d 38, 45-46 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993) State v. Bible, 858 P.2d 1152, 1183 (Ariz. 1993) StatSoft, Inc. (1992). Complete Statistical System: STATISTICA (CSS/3), Addendum, Release 3.1. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft, Inc. StatSoft, Inc. (1995). STATISTICA for Windows [Computer program manual]. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft, Inc., 2300 East 14th Street, Tulsa, OK, 74104-4442, (918) 749-1119, fax: (918) 749-2217, e-mail: [email protected], WEB: http://www.statsoft.com. Stern, P. (1994). Science in the Courtroom: From the Frye-Pan to the Fire. Violence Update, Vol. 4(12). Stoelting, C. (1990). A study of the construct validity of the MESA. Vocational Evaluation and Work Adjustment Bulletin, 23(3), Fall, 1990, pp. 85-91. Streater, S. E. (1987). A Comparative Analysis of Subtest Results: the 1978 Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) Versus the 1984 Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised (WRAT-R). Unpublished Dissertation. American College of Vocational Experts, Nashville, TN. Strong, M. H., Jeanneret, P. R., McPhail, S. M. & Blakley, B. R. (1997). Chapter 7: Generalized work activities: Evidence for the reliability and validity of the measures. In O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume II, N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A. Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin eds. Utah Department of Workforce Services, 7-1 to 7-32. Table B-22. (1992). National Income by type of income, 1959-91. Economic Report of the President. (Transmitted to the Congress, Feb. 1992). Washington, DC: GPO. Reprinted (1995): Journal of Vocationology 1(1), p. 47. Taylor, K. E., & Weiss, D. J. (1972) Prediction of individual job termination from measured job satisfaction and biographical data. J. Vocat. Behav. 2:123-132. Teal, R. A. (1978). Comparison of the VDARE Technique with the Hester Evaluation System. Unpublished Masters Research Project, Athens GA: University of Georgia. The Testifying Expert. LRP Publications, Horsham PA., l993-95. Thorndike, R. L. & Hagen, E. (1969). Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and Education, 3rd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, p. 173. US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of the Census. (1987). Per Capita Income In Current & 1987 Dollars. News. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of the Census. (1993). Table B-28 Total And Per Capita Disposable Personal Income And Personal Consumption Expenditures In Current And 1987 Dollars, 1959 - 1993. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of the Census. (1992). County Business Patterns: US National and Sub-National Wage Earnings Data by two-, three-, and four-digit levels of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) System. Washington, DC, US Govt. Printing Office. (VI updated for wage inflation from 1993 - 1998). US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of the Census. (1972). Standard Industrial Classification Codes. Washington, DC, US Govt. Printing Office. Revised, 1977. Revised, 1987. US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. (1987, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997). Selected Average Annual Pay Tables: 1984-2001. And, Appendix III: Limitations of Data. In: Statistical Abstract(s) of the United States. Washington, DC: Govt. Printing Office. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1939a). Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Vol. I). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1939b). Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Vol. II). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1949a). Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Vol. I, 2nd ed.). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1949b). Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Vol. II, 2nd ed.). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1956, 1961). Estimates of Worker Trait Requirements for 4,000 Jobs as Defined in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles: An Alphabetical Index. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1965a). Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Vol. I, 3rd ed.). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1965b). Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Vol. II, 3rd ed.). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1966). A Supplement for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1968). Supplement 2 for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1972). Handbook For Analyzing Jobs (Revised edition). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Reprinted, Menomonie, WI: Materials Development Center, University of Wisconsin- Stout, (1976). Re-revised & Reprinted, Washington, DC US Government Printing Office, (1991). US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1977). Dictionary Of Occupational Titles (Vol. I, 4th ed.). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1991a). Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Vols. I, 4th ed. Rev.). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1991b). Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Vols. II, 4th ed. Rev.). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1990). Occupational Outlook Handbook 1990-91 Edition Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1992). Occupational Outlook Handbook 1992-93 Edition Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1994). Occupational Outlook Handbook 1994-95 Edition Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1996). Occupational Outlook Handbook 1996-97 Edition Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1998). Occupational Outlook Handbook 1998-99 Edition Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (US DOLETA), (1998). O*NET The Occupational Information Network Data Dictionary, Release 1.0. Washington D.C.: US GPO. US Department of Labor, US Employment Service. (1979). Guide for Occupational Exploration. Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor. (1970a). Manual for the USES General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor. (1970b). Manual for the USES Non-Reading Aptitude Test Battery (NATB). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor. (1982). A Guide to Job Analysis. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor. Bureau of Employment Security. (1982). Supplement 1 for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. US Department of Labor. Bureau of Employment Security. (1986). Supplement 2 for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. US v Starzecpyzel No. 93 CR. 553 (LMM), ( S.D.N.Y., 4/3/95). Vadala v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 44 F.3d 36, 39 (1st Cir. 1995 holding that Daubert is limited to cases involving scientific law and not accidents). War Manpower Commission, Bureau of Manpower Utilization. (1944). Dictionary of Occupational Titles, Part IV: Entry occupational classification. Washington, DC: US GPO. War Manpower Commission, US Employment Service. (1943, 1945). Selective Placement for the Handicapped (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: US GPO. Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236. Wattenbarger W. E. (1981). A Comparison of the Transferable of Skills Analysis of Residual Employability Using the Social Security Administration’s Grid System and the VDARE Process. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens. Wattenbarger W. E., Braswell, S., Dennis, H. & McCroskey, B. J. (1992) Three Employability Indices For Experimental And Programmatic Analysis In Rehabilitation. The Vocationologist, 1(1). Minneapolis, MN: Vocationology, Inc., pp. 2-11. Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., Lofquist, L. H. and England, G. W. (1966). Instrumentation for the theory of work adjustment. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, No. XXI. Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. West Law Books. (1993). Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 42 U.S.C.A. SS 12101 et. seq. Williams, J. M. (1998). Transferability of Skills Methodologies Used in Computerized Job Matching Systems: Sufficient or Insufficient Control of Methodologically Induced Error Variance? Journal of Forensic Vocational Assessment, 1(3), pp. 29- 41. Wright, J. W. (1984). The American Almanac of Jobs and Salaries. New York, NY: Avon Books.