&
§
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 - http://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.