&
§
Abstract
§
Some Challenges of the new O*NET
Vocational case managers, counselors, and experts are faced
with a dilemma about Transferable Skills Analysis (TSA) because the U. S.
Department of Labor (DOL) is making a transition from the venerable Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT)
to the new Occupational Information Network (O*NET) system. The DOL is no
longer updating the DOT, and it has actively promoted O*NET as a replacement
for the DOT for career exploration and workforce investment purposes. Yet, an
examination of O*NET reveals that it is not suitable for disability
adjudication and vocational rehabilitation use. The DOL acknowledges the fact that O*NET is not designed for
forensic use, and has been working with the Social Security Administration for
two years to identify types of additional data that are needed to augment
O*NET-SOC information for forensic purposes. This article describes the
historical context of the DOT, explains some challenges facing both the aging
DOT and the new O*NET, identifies the dilemma confronting vocational
professionals because of this transition, and most importantly, suggests some
interim solutions.
Since its creation in the 1930s,
the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) (United States Department of
Labor (US DOL), 1939, 1949, 1965a, 1965b, 1966, 1977, 1991a, 1993b) has
undergone considerable metamorphosis to meet changes in the world of work and
the needs of its users. It was
introduced in 1939 as a simple four-digit coding system to describe occupations
in a standardized way for use within Employment Service offices for purposes of
labor exchange. The realities of World
War II production and personnel requirements underscored the need to develop
suitable methods of matching people to job requirements (US DOL, 1944). Extensive testing and research programs by
the military and DOL identified a series of core worker trait factors that
became part of the DOT and ultimately emerged in 1947 as the General Aptitude
Test Battery (GATB). Post-war efforts
to match disabled veterans to occupational requirements, and to meet the
growing needs of an expanding industrial economy spurred continued occupational
research.
In the late 1950’s, Fine (1955, 1957a,
1957b, 1958; Fine & Heinz, 1958) developed the conceptual foundation for
modern transferable skills analysis, focusing on the importance of worker
functions, work fields, and materials, products, subject matter, and services
(MPSMS) when examining post-injury profiles.
The third edition of the DOT (US DOL, 1965a, 1965b) unveiled a
two-volume set using a new six-digit occupational coding structure designed to
group occupations (Occupational Group Arrangement) and worker functions
(Data-People-Things). One year later, it was followed by the Selected
Characteristics of Occupations (SCO) (US DOL, 1966). This was a landmark release for the
vocational industry, because it opened the doors for disability evaluation
encouraged by the Social Security Administration (SSA). It also triggered the development of a
significant number of commercial vocational evaluation systems. The SCO was expressly produced to assist
professionals with disability evaluation.
In 1972, DOL published the Handbook
for Analyzing Jobs (US DOL, 1972) describing in detail the methodology for
conducting on-site surveys for data collection and subsequent aggregation into
the DOT. Recognizing the need for more
efficient handling of the growing body of occupational knowledge and the need for
a non gender-biased publication, DOL published its fourth edition of the DOT
(US DOL, 1977), significantly expanding the release of discrete worker
characteristic information at the occupational level rather than by
occupational group (US DOL, 1981). The 1977 expanded occupational coding system
uniquely identified each occupation by nine-digit number (up from six digits),
for the purpose of computerized storage and retrieval.
Rehabilitation practitioners and
software designers seized this new treasure of data. McCroskey, Wattenbarger, Field, & Sink (1977) developed a
method of occupational profiling to take advantage of this new breadth of
worker characteristics. Field popularized this approach in the Vocational Diagnosis and Assessment of
Residual Employability (VDARE), the first systematic approach to manually
use the DOT data to assess skill transferability and residual employability
(Field & Sink, 1980). In 1978, the
SSA published its regulatory guidelines for medical-vocational assessments of
disability claimants and took administrative notice of the DOT, then in its 4th
edition, as an authoritative reference for occupational information. SSA defined transferable skills in the Code of Federal Regulations [20 CFR
404.1568(d) and 416.968(d)] and set up its Medical/Vocational grids (20 CFR
404, Subpart P, Appendix 2) to facilitate its review of disability claims. As computing technology moved to the
desktop, various commercial software systems were created to automate the
arduous manual task of sorting through the various paper volumes of DOT
definitions and worker characteristics.
Building on Fine’s concept of transferability, Botterbusch (1983, 1986)
asserted the use of Work Field and MPSMS as the only true method for
transferable skills analysis. This
approach became widely recognized as the industry standard for transferability
of skills analysis (Brown, McDaniel, Couch, & McClanahan, 1994; Field,
1999; Kontosh, 1999; Dunn & Growick, 2000; Weed & Field, 2001; Bast,
Williams, and Dunn, 2002; Darling, Growick & Kontosh, 2002; Gibson,
Earhart, & Lento, 2002).
The DOL released a small DOT
supplement in 1986 (US DOL, 1986), later replacing it in 1991 with the Revised Fourth Edition DOT (US DOL,
1991a). In 1992, DOL released, in electronic format, more detail about Physical
Demands and Environmental Conditions, particularly disaggregating important
physical demands detail such as reaching, handling, fingering, and
feeling. The DOL had published its
procedures in the 1991 Revised Handbook
for Analyzing Jobs (RHAJ) (US DOL, 1991b). Many of these disaggregated
worker characteristics were later published in the revised SCO (US DOL,
1993b). Since 1992, DOL has made only a
few minor modifications to the DOT data electronically, and it has not
published the data changes in any widely disseminated printed format.
The steady evolution of the DOT had some interesting side effects. Other government agencies created their own occupational classification systems with levels of occupational detail that
could be reliably sampled for purposes of their data collection. These federal agencies included the Bureau
of the Census, the Department of Commerce, the Office of Personnel Management,
and the Department of Defense. Even
within the DOL itself, it created several simpler classification systems, one
to gather labor market information based on the Occupational Employment Survey
(OES), the other to aggregate occupations for its popular biannual publication
- The Occupational Outlook Handbook
(OOH) (US DOL, 2002b). Aside from the daunting and expensive task of updating
this mountain of DOT data, the DOT data and structure began to age and fall out
of step with a changing economic structure (Miller, Treiman, Cain, & Roos,
1980; Botterbusch, 1993). Many DOT occupations have become obsolete or
non-existent through business process and technology improvements. Others have combined and collapsed into a
single “new” occupation. Information
and bio-technology have spawned numerous new, emerging occupations not yet
captured by traditional occupational sources.
DOL sought alternate methods to collect data to reflect these changes in
the workplace. It dismantled its
network of Field Analysis Centers and moved to a job-incumbent survey model
rather than using trained job analysts to collect occupational data (US DOL,
2002a).
In response to the changing
economy and a growing desire for more current data, DOL began in 1991 to
receive input from its employment network stakeholders through the Advisory
Panel on the DOT (APDOT) (US DOL, 1993a).
The various APDOT reports proposed a new "Content Model" for
occupational information. After years
of research, DOL introduced the Occupational Information Network (O*NET)
in 1998 (US DOL, n.d.a). In this first
prototype release, O*NET collapsed the 12,700+ unique DOT occupations into a
significantly smaller number of occupational groups (846 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) groups; 1,166 SOC-O*NET
groups). The most recent production
release, O*NET 4.0 (O*NET 5.0 available in Summer, 2003), has about 950
occupations. This aggregation serves
one of the primary objectives of the DOL:
to adopt a standardized occupational classification -- the SOC -- that
can be used at its Employment Service offices, yet be expanded by using the
O*NET-SOC coding system for more career counseling detail. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has mandated that all federal agencies use the newly revised SOC for occupational
coding when it is appropriate to the mission of the agency (OMB, 1999). Most state Employment Service agencies are
converting to the SOC in some way, although each agency is at various stages of
deployment (US DOL, 2001).
The new O*NET Content Model
(O*NET Consortium, n.d.), while drastically reducing the number of occupations,
vastly increases the number of worker and occupational characteristics from 72
to more than 230. The 1998 O*NET prototype coding has already been replaced by
the new O*NET 4.0/5.0 coding system that is a direct variant of the newly
revised SOC system, the new federal Standard Occupational Classification. The breadth of information being assembled
for the O*NET database is taking years to fully develop and deploy by the
various agencies.
The O*NET information is intended
primarily for purposes of career exploration, and career planning (US DOL,
n.d.b). In addition, O*NET information
is used for various workforce investment purposes, such as writing skills-based
job orders or resumes, curriculum development, on-the-job training contracts,
and related purposes. The DOL has indicated that O*NET is not designed for
forensic use (P. Frugoli, DOL, personal communication with author S. Karman,
June, 2003). Investigation of O*NET
confirms that the system, by design, is not suitable for applications where
occupation-specific information about the thresholds for physical, mental and
skill-level demands of work are needed.
Of particular concern to vocational professionals are the aggregation of
O*NET data, the manner of data collection and the descriptors of work and
worker traits (Cannelongo, 2002a).
The way in which O*NET
occupations are aggregated results in a loss of specificity that is critical to
vocational professionals. The O*NET
taxonomy clusters approximately 9,500 DOT titles into fewer than 1,000
SOC-O*NET occupational groups. Many of
the SOC-O*NET occupations contain a large, heterogeneous mix of jobs with a
widely diverse range of strength and skill requirements. For example, the strength requirements for
an SOC-O*NET occupational grouping may span several ranges of ability:
sedentary through heavy. As such, O*NET
groups often reflect a cluster of related occupations rather a single, discrete
occupation. This high level of data aggregation
makes it difficult for vocational professionals to determine if a disability
claimant or injured person could perform an occupation when the individual’s
residual functional capacity and work history are taken into consideration.
The O*NET data collection methods also differ substantially from the
DOT. Rather than deploy trained job analysts to observe jobs on-site, the new
approach by DOL is to have job incumbents complete survey forms. Certain dimensions (e.g. “Abilities”) will
be rated by job analysts without going on-site to observe or otherwise measure
actual performance. Pre-testing of the
survey forms provided an estimate of the time required to complete all of the
items. To meet OMB guidelines for time
burden on individual respondents, DOL divided the survey into 4 separate
questionnaires, each of which is completed by 15-20 employees in each
occupation, for a total of 60-80. (US DOL, 2000). This approach may introduce problems with internal sample
consistency and with reliability for forensic purposes. It appears that the O*NET data collection
may not cover enough of the lower skill level segments of the labor market
(Cannelongo, 2000a). Beginning
mid-2001, DOL initiated its plans to survey about 200 occupations per year,
expecting to have O*NET fully populated with new incumbent survey data by 2008.
While data gathering for O*NET
has been underway, the initial ratings for characteristics reported in O*NET
are derived strictly from researcher efforts to collapse the old DOT data into
the O*NET occupational groupings (US DOL, n.d.c). Using factor analysis, DOT titles were arranged into the current
O*NET occupational groups. Then, job
analysts rated the work and worker traits, or descriptors, for each of the new
occupational groupings (Peterson, 1999). While many of the current O*NET
descriptors are helpful for career exploration, they pose a particular concern
for forensic professionals. For
reasons detailed below, it would be difficult for a vocational expert to defend
the choices of existing O*NET descriptors used in forensic case analysis.
Investigation of O*NET descriptors reveals four areas of concern:
a)
Link between demands of work and human function: Many of
the descriptors are difficult to observe in the work place and difficult to relate
to a client. For example, it is unclear
how a job analyst might be able to rate the extent of “static strength” or
“problem sensitivity” required to perform an occupation satisfactorily. It is equally unclear how a vocational
professional could assess the level of “static strength” or “problem
sensitivity” that a client could perform.
b)
Terminology: The terminology and definitions
of O*NET descriptors appear to reflect mostly industrial organizational
psychology, and are unlike those used by SSA, the medical profession and
numerous other users, such as vocational rehabilitation and forensic
specialists. This does not help to resolve a long-standing communication
problem among healthcare, forensic, and disability management professionals.
c)
Redundancy: Some of the O*NET physical
descriptors seem to describe similar attributes, e.g., explosive strength vs.
dynamic strength, and gross body coordination vs. gross body equilibrium
(Bainbridge, 2001). It is difficult to accurately measure job demands using terms
that may overlap or reflect similar constructs. The problems created by such overlap would be amplified if
rehabilitation specialists and SSA adjudicators try to interpret those terms
and their measures to evaluate a client’s or SSA disability claimant’s
functional abilities.
d)
Scales: The measures for O*NET
descriptors involve the use of ordinal scales rather than interval scales, and
can lead to problems with objective interpretation. For example, it is
difficult to quantify Trunk Strength on a scale of 1 to 7, with anchors such as
“sit up in office chair,” “shovel snow for half hour,” and “do 100 sit ups” at
points 2, 4 and 6, respectively along a 7-point scale. Also, the user cannot
know what the descriptor scores mean in terms of the functioning level required
to perform the occupation. The Likert scales, used in the O*NET incumbent
questionnaires and converted into ratings of 1 to 100 for the online version of
O*NET, are not linked to functional measures, such as amount of force required
for a specified duration. Therefore, adjudicators and rehabilitation
specialists cannot know what a score of 48 in Trunk Strength means, as reported
for Food Preparation Worker (O*NET-SOC code 35-2021.00).
Despite the volume of these new
characteristics, many physical demand characteristics important to the
rehabilitation and forensic community are still not measured. Furthermore, concerns regarding terminology
and redundancy affect the extent to which job incumbents may be able to
understand the survey questions, which may, in turn, affect the reliability of
the responses when survey responses are tallied. The reading level requirement for some questions may be too
high for many job incumbents, and may be another source of survey error.
The International Association of
Rehabilitation Professionals (IARP) has developed its own internal O*NET
subcommittee (Cannelongo, 2000b) to evaluate additional issues. Preliminary statistical analysis by the
subcommittee has clearly shown the lack of homogeneity in the various SOC and
O*NET-SOC groups when carried out to examine the DOT occupations that comprise
each group. There is growing
discussion of additional job demand detail beyond the O*NET level. The IARP has
spearheaded the formation of a coalition of professional organizations called
the Inter-Organizational Task Force (IOTF) interested in this new layer of
occupational/worker trait detail (IARP, 2002).
The goal of the IOTF is to assist DOL and SSA to establish a common,
objective, measurable, and reliable framework that can best describe the
physical, mental, cognitive, training and environmental demands associated with
occupations. Representing a collective
membership of 300,000 diverse professionals interested in these issues, the
IOTF is a powerful force for developing a common shared language for more
efficient and consistent service delivery (J. Cannelongo, personal
communication with author J. Truthan, June, 2003; IARP, 2002). The SSA is continuing to work with DOL to
best articulate the needs of the rehabilitation and disability evaluation
community.
To
encourage its own departments to begin using O*NET-SOC instead of the DOT, DOL
launched a significant marketing campaign to declare that the DOT had been
replaced by the new 1998 SOC (Mariani, 1999; Levine & Salmon, 1999). Yet this message has been the source of a
great deal of misunderstanding in the rehabilitation and forensics communities,
creating a significant dilemma. While
the O*NET database has the potential to add some new dimensions to understanding
and describing an occupation for career exploration purposes, it was not
designed for vocational rehabilitation and disability evaluation. As noted, many of the scales for the new
dimensions can neither be measured nor quantified and the occupational groups
are often far too heterogeneous in composition. If the DOT is "replaced" and O*NET is not adequate for
rehabilitation purposes, then how does a case manager or vocational expert
build a sound opinion that will be accepted by the court?
Recognizing the concerns of
rehabilitation and forensic specialists, in joint meetings during the past two
years, DOL staff have indicated to SSA and the IOTF that O*NET information is
the successor to the DOT for purposes of career exploration, workforce investment/labor
exchange, and business human resources functions (P. Frugoli, DOL, personal
communication with author S. Karman, June, 2003). Collaboration among IOTF, SSA and DOL has resulted in an
understanding that two modalities of occupational information are necessary:
one that is intended for career preparation and exploration, and the other that
is useful for forensic and rehabilitation purposes. Toward that end, SSA and DOL are in the process of developing plans
to address the need for occupational information for disability evaluation and
vocational rehabilitation (SSA, 2003a; 2003b).
In the context of the issues
above and until other suitable occupational data are available, SSA indicated
that it cannot use O*NET and that it will continue to use the DOT (SSA, 1999a;
and SSA, 1999b). In the CFR, SSA takes
administrative notice of the DOT as “reliable job information available from
various governmental and other publications” (20 CFR 404.1566(d) and 416. 966(d)). Social Security Ruling 00-4p clarifies SSA
standards for the use of vocational evidence involving “other reliable sources
of occupational information” (SSR, 2000).
The ruling states that SSA adjudicators must obtain a reasonable
explanation for any conflicts between occupational evidence provided by
vocational experts or specialists and the DOT.
Adjudicators must then explain in their determinations or decisions how
the conflicts were resolved. Also, SSR
00-4p states that SSA regulatory definitions and policy for strength and skill
levels and for TSA are controlling in the adjudication. These regulatory definitions are based on
DOT constructs.
The SSA definition of skills
transferability remains solid, defensible, and relevant today. The SSA and DOL plans are evolving to
address the need for occupational information that is suitable for
rehabilitation and forensic purposes.
The SSA, IOTF, and DOL continue to work cooperatively together. A solution can certainly be derived, but it
will take time to assure that the future occupational information does indeed
have suitable mechanisms in place to properly examine transferability of
skills, particularly for disability and forensic issues. Such efforts may include the introduction of
a new layer of occupational detail at the O*NET level. The DOL has already sponsored some research
of internet-based training (distance learning) to establish the feasibility of
teaching field professionals to reliably perform job analysis. Results solidly point to such an approach
with inter-rater reliability extending from .77 to .98 (Cannelongo, Lechner,
Keener, Carter, & Johnson, 2002).
Until such time that these
collaborative efforts are completed, the DOT cannot be retired or written off
for rehabilitation, forensic, and disability adjudication. Aging though it is, trained job analysts
followed a clearly defined methodology on-site to validate the DOT, and it is
reliable (Cain & Green, 1983). To
the extent that vocational professionals use O*NET, its data collection is
still underway and will not finish its first cycle of data collection until
about 2008. To help rehabilitation and
forensic professionals during this time period, the following points are
recommended for transferable skills analysis during this transition.
·
Continue to use the DOT.
It has the longevity and defensible depth required by the courts
(Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993).
·
Carefully examine DOT tasks and worker characteristics to
assure continued relevance.
·
Add another DOT code/description to work history to help
best describe one actual position held.
It may take several DOT codes to best capture the responsibilities of
each job held in a client’s work history.
(Note: SSA Vocational Experts
should adhere to current SSA policy).
·
Use the proper method for TSA (i.e. Work fields, Specific
Vocational Preparation (SVP) and MPSMS), as these taxonomies best fit the SSA
definition of transferable skills (20 CFR 404.1568(d)(2) and 416.968(d)(2)).
This is the generally accepted and the current industry standard practice. Standard practices do not change
overnight. New standards cannot emerge
until new methods and data elements have been created and validated. (Note: SSA adjudicators derive information
similar to that reflected in Work and MPSMS fields from the DOT description of
tasks and tools for given occupations.)
·
Carefully screen the results of any search method. No computer system will ever replace the
scrutiny of a skilled vocational professional.
·
Be aware that some occupations no longer exist nor exist in
significant numbers in a specific labor market. (Note: By law, SSA
must consider occupations as they exist nationally. Therefore, for SSA
cases, do not necessarily exclude occupations that are not prevalent in a given
locale, as they may exist in significant numbers in the national labor market
(E. Tocco, Office of Disability Programs, SSA, personal communication
with author, S. Karman, May, 2003).
·
Study all occupational suggestions for changed worker
requirements, potential obsolescence, and combination with other occupations in
today's economy.
·
Augment your understanding of an occupation with
information drawn from a variety of sources.
·
Examine labor market information for relevant trends, being
careful to understand that labor market information usually reflects many
discrete occupations, not just one DOT occupation.
·
Conduct a labor market survey to validate the continued
existence of such occupation(s), current hiring patterns, prevalence, duties,
tasks, skill sets, and hiring requirements.
·
When possible and appropriate, do an on-site survey/job
analysis.
Rehabilitation and forensic
professionals should be poised to assist the DOL and the SSA to develop and
deploy a variety of creative approaches to gather current occupational data.
The DOL and SSA are seeking the active input of the rehabilitation and forensic
community to discover the data needed to render opinions on important
vocational issues. The IOTF coalition
of various rehabilitation, health care and disability associations, and private
industry represent a significant number of interested parties. Collectively and cooperatively, these
parties can help DOL and SSA shape the next level of evolution necessary to
properly address the needs for current, detailed and relevant occupational
information in the rehabilitation and forensic communities.
As the opening historical
perspective showed, change does happen over a significant period of time. This present time is an enormous opportunity
to be heard and to work towards the implementation of worker and occupational
characteristics that will truly benefit rehabilitation for generations. The IOTF, the DOL, and the SSA are receptive
to the needs of the rehabilitation and forensic communities. Professionals are encouraged to become
active in contributing to the continued evolution of a critical component of
various public and private service delivery systems.
Bainbridge, D.B. (2001).
Letter to James F. Woods, Chief of the Division of Evaluation and Skills
Assessment, Office of Policy and Research, Employment and Training
Administration, Department of Labor.
Bast, S.,
Williams, J.M., & Dunn, P.L.
(2002). The Classic Model of
Transferability of Work Skills: Issues
Affecting the Accurate Assessment of Future Vocational Options in Earnings
Capacity Assessment. Journal of
Forensic Vocational Assessment 5, 15-28.
Botterbusch,
K.F. (1983). A Comparison of
Computerized Job Matching Systems.
Menomonie, WI: Materials
Development Center.
Botterbusch,
K.F. (1986). A Comparison of
Computerized Job Matching Systems (2nd Ed.). Menomonie, WI: Materials Development Center.
Botterbusch,
K.F. (1993). Suggestions for revisions
in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.
Vocational Evaluation and Work Adjustment Bulletin 26, 101-110.
Brown,
C., McDaniel, R., Couch, R, and McClanahan, M. (1994). Vocational Evaluation Systems and
Software: A Consumer’s Guide. Menomonie, WI: Materials Development Center.
Cain,
P.S. & Green, B.F. (1983).
Reliabilities of Selected Ratings Available from the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 68(1), 155-165.
Cannelongo,
J. (2000a). IARP Response to O*NET Data
Collection Proposal. Fall, 2000. Retrieved June 1, 2003 from
http://www.rehabpro.org/onet/onet8.html
Cannelongo,
J. (2000b). Update on O*NET. Spring,
2000. Retrieved June 1, 2003 from
http://www.rehabpro.org/onetupdates_frameset_msie.html
Cannelongo,
J., Lechner, D., Keener, J., Carter, G., & Johnson, J. (2002). Feasibility
of Internet-Based Training and Reliability of Internet-Trained Job Analysts.
Washington DC: Aguirre International (Under U.S. Department of Labor Contract
BB-12266-02-03).
Darling,
W.T., Growick, B.S., & Kontosh, L.G.
(2002). Transferable Skills
Analysis in Rehabilitation: Issues in
definition and application. Journal
of Vocational Rehabilitation 17, 217-224.
Daubert
v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., US Supreme Court, 92-102 (1993).
Dunn,
P.L., & Growick, B.S. (2000). Transferable Skills Analysis in Vocational
Rehabilitation: Historical Foundations,
Current Status, and Future Trends. Journal
of Vocational Rehabilitation 14, 79-87.
Field,
T.F. (1999). Strategies for the
rehabilitation consultant:
Transferability, loss of employment, lost earning capacity, damages. Athens, GA: Elliott & Fitzpatrick.
Field,
T.F. & Sink, J. (1980) The VDARE training manual. Athens, GA: E & F, Inc.
Fine,
S.A. (1955). A structure of worker functions. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 34(2) 1-7.
Fine,
S.A. (1957a). A reexamination of “transferability of skills” – Part 1. Monthly
Labor Review 80(7) 803-810.
Fine,
S.A. (1957b). A reexamination of “transferability of skills” – Part 2. Monthly
Labor Review 80(7) 938-948.
Fine,
S.A. & Heinz, C.A. (1958). The
Functional Occupational Classification Structure. Personnel and Guidance Journal. 37(3) 180-192.
Gibson,
G.G., Earhart, J.H., and Lento, P.J.
(2002). Toward a Foundation for
Determining Loss of Earning Capacity: Transferability of Skills Definition,
Method, and Application. Journal of
Forensic Vocational Analysis. 5(1), 5-14.
International Association
of Rehabilitation Professionals. (2002).
O*NET- What is really going on?
IARP-O*NET Committee Report - 1/10/02.
Retrieved June 1, 2003, from http://www.rehabpro.org/onet7.doc
Kontosh,
L.G. (1999). Methodological Processes,
Utilization Patterns, and Perceived Levels of Self-Efficacy in the Execution of
Transferable Skills Analysis by Forensic Rehabilitationists: A Descriptive Study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio
State University.
Levine, C
and Salmon, L. (1999). The 1998
SOC: Bridge to occupational
classification in the 21st century.
Occupational Outlook Quarterly.
43(3), 27-33.
Mariani,
M. (1999). Replace with a Database:
O*NET Replaces the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Occupational Outlook Quarterly. 43(1), 3-9.
McCroskey,
B., Wattenbarger, W., Field, T,. & Sink, J. (1977). The Vocational Diagnosis and Assessment of Residual
Employability. Athens, GA: Authors.
Miller,
A.R., Treiman, D.J., Cain, P.S., & Roos, P.A. (1980). Work, Jobs,
and Occupations: A Critical Review of
the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
O*NET
Consortium. (n.d.) O*NET Consortium – Content Model. Retrieved June 1, 2003 from
http://www.onetcenter.org/content.html
Peterson,
Norman G., et al, eds. An
Occupational Information System for the 21st Century: The
Development of O*NET. Washington, D. C., American Psychological
Association, 1999.
Social
Security Administration. (1999a).
Letter Number 507, June 30, 1999. Memorandum to the Disability
Determination Services Administrators from the Associate Commissioner for
Disability, Kenneth D. Nibali. Subject: Current Status of the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles (DOT) and the Occupational Information Network (O*NET).
Baltimore, MD: Social Security Administration, Office of Disability.
Social
Security Administration. (1999b).
December 3, 1999 Memorandum to Headquarters Executive Staff,
Administrative Appeals Judges, Regional Chief Administrative Law Judges,
Administrative Law Judges, Supervisory Staff Attorneys from the Associate
Commissioner for Hearings and Appeals, Rita S. Geier. Subject: Current Status of the Dictionary of Occupational
Titles (DOT) and the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). Falls
Church, VA: Social Security Administration, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
Social
Security Administration. (2003a). Development
of Occupational Database (SSA Sources Sought Notice - June 4, 2003 -
OSD-03-0001). Baltimore, MD: Social Security Administration.
Social
Security Administration. (2003b). Revision
and Updating of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and Selected
Characteristics of Occupations Defined in the Revised Dictionary of
Occupational Titles (SSA Sources Sought Notice - June 4, 2003 -
OSD-03-0002). Baltimore, MD: Social Security Administration.
Social
Security Rulings. (2000). Titles II and XVI: Use of Vocational Expert and Vocational
Specialist Evidence, and Other Reliable Occupational Information in Disability
Decisions. SSR 00-4p Policy
Interpretation Ruling. Retrieved June
1, 2003, from http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/02/SSR2000-04-di-02.html
U.S.
Department of Labor. (1939). Dictionary of Occupational Titles (1st
ed.). Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.
U.S.
Department of Labor. (1944). Dictionary of Occupational Titles (1st
ed., Part IV, Entry Occupational Classification). Washington, D.C.: US
Government Printing Office.
U.S.
Department of Labor. (1949). Dictionary of Occupational Titles (2nd
ed.). Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.
U.S.
Department of Labor. (1965a). Dictionary of Occupational Titles: Definitions
of Titles. Volume 1 (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.
U.S.
Department of Labor. (1965b). Dictionary of Occupational Titles:
Occupational Classification and Industry Index. Volume 2 (3rd ed.).
Washington, D.C.: US Government
Printing Office.
U.S.
Department of Labor. (1966). A Supplement to the Dictionary of Occupational
Titles (3rd ed.): Selected
Characteristics of Occupations (Physical Demands, Working Conditions, Training
Times). Washington, D.C.: US
Government Printing Office.
U.S.
Department of Labor. Manpower Administration. (1972). The Handbook for
Analyzing Jobs. Washington,
D.C.: US Government Printing Office.
U.S.
Department of Labor. (1977). Dictionary of Occupational Titles (4th
ed.). Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.
U.S.
Department of Labor. (1981). Selected Characteristics of Occupations Defined
in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.
Washington, D.C.: US
Government Printing Office.
U.S.
Department of Labor. (1986). Supplement to the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles (4th ed.).
Washington, D.C.: US Government
Printing Office.
U.S.
Department of Labor. (1991a). Dictionary of Occupational Titles (4th
ed. revised). Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.
U.S.
Department of Labor. (1991b). The Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.
U.S.
Department of Labor. (1993a). The new DOT: A database of occupational
titles for the twenty-first century. Advisory Panel for the Dictionary
of Occupational Titles: Employment and Training Administration.
U.S.
Department of Labor. (1993b). Selected
Characteristics of Occupations Defined in the Dictionary of Occupational
Titles. (Revised ed.). Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.
U.S.
Department of Labor. (2001). SOC
Implementation Schedule. Retrieved June
1, 2003 from http://www.bls.gov/soc/socimp.htm
U.S.
Department of Labor. (2000). O*NET Consortium – Data Collection. Retrieved June 1, 2003 from
http://www.onetcenter.org/dataCollection.html
See also web page retrieved June 1, 2003 from http://onet.rti.org/survey.cfm
U.S.
Department of Labor. (2002a) Information Collection Request Submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget. Fed. Reg., Vol. 67, No. 149, p. 50470.
August 2, 2002. Available from
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a020802c.html
Documentation available from http://www.onetcenter.org/ombclearance.html
U.S. Department
of Labor. (2002b). Occupational Outlook Handbook – 2002-2003. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S.
Department of Labor. (n.d.a) About O*NET. Retrieved June 1, 2003 from
http://www.onetcenter.org/overview.html
U.S.
Department of Labor. (n.d.b). O*NET
Consortium – Frequently Asked Questions.
Retrieved June 1, 2003 from http://www.onetcenter.org/faq.html#strength
U.S.
Department of Labor. (n.d.c) O*NET
Consortium – Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved June 1, 2003 from www.onetcenter.org/faq.html#info.
U.S.
Office of Management and Budget. (1999).
Standard Occupational Classification (1998 revision): Final decisions.
Fed. Reg., Vol. 64, No. 189, p. 53135-53163.
September 30, 1999. Retrieved
June 1, 2003 from http://www.bls.gov/soc/SEPT_LINK7
Available from http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a990930c.html
Weed,
R.O., & Field, T. F. (2001). Rehabilitation
Consultant’s Handbook. Athens,
GA: Elliott & Fitzpatrick.
Jeffrey A. Truthan, MS-Rehabilitation Counseling,
CVE
SkillTRAN, LLC -
www.skilltran.com
3910 S. Union Court – Spokane
Valley, WA 99206
(509) 927-8195
Jeff Truthan is President of
SkillTRAN, LLC of Spokane, WA.
He has designed, developed, and improved many PC and internet-based
software products including Job Browser Pro, EZ-DOT, Placement
Planning Service (PPS), Pre-Injury/Post-Injury Analysis (PREPOST), Career
Consultant Service (CCS), and the Job Search Service (JSS). Jeff’s 30-year career in the rehabilitation
industry includes 12 years of experience as a rehabilitation counselor and a
vocational evaluator, and 18 years of experience in the design, development,
and support of computer software. He
draws upon this work experience in his daily interaction with vocational
professionals to devise practical and easy-to-use database solutions for
efficient handling of complex vocational issues. He earned his BA degree from the University of Notre Dame in
1973, and his MS degree in Rehabilitation Counseling from the Illinois
Institute of Technology in 1975.
Social Security Administration
Sylvia Karman is the Social Security Administration’s lead for a series
of projects to research methods to obtain more current information about
occupations in the U.S. labor market, and to explore options for updating
Social Security’s disability evaluation policy in the face of a changing world
of work. Sylvia began her career with
the Social Security Administration in 1979 as a college intern. After graduating in 1982 with a BA degree
from Towson University in Maryland, her work has involved policy and
legislative development and program evaluation for the Supplemental Security Income
program under title XVI and for the agency’s disability programs under both
titles II and XVI.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the critical input and insights of
Pam Frugoli, O*NET/Skill Assessment Team Lead, Employment and Training
Administration, U.S. DOL, and Elaine Tocco, Medical
Vocational Policy Team Leader, SSA during the final preparation stages
of this manuscript.