- Email: [email protected]
Job analysis, personnel selection, and the ADA
JOB ANALYSIS, PERSONNEL SELECTION, AND THE ADA Michael T. Brannick University of South Florida Joan P. Brannick Jack Eckerd ~or~oratjo~ Edward L. Levine University of South Florida
The ADA will change the way employers screen and hire applicants. The notion of essential functions is central to hiring under the ADA. We explore the meaning of essential functions, including changes in perspective due to the ADA, how to conduct a job analysis to provide information in determining essential functions, and the role of essential functions in selection. We conclude by noting some challenges for job analysis under the ADA and directions for research.
Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against a qualified person with a disability in employment. The ADA defines a qualified person with a disability as “an individual with a disability who . . . , with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such a position” (EEOC 1992, p. 11). Determining the essential functions of the job, therefore, will be necessary for fair employment practices under the ADA. Although the ADA does not require a job analysis to determine essential functions, it is difficult to see how the essential functions could be determined without job analysis. Sparks (1988) noted that job analysis is essentially required to justify tests before the courts (see also Thompson & Thompson 1982). Our purpose is to explore the meaning of “essential function” as outlined by the ADA. We begin by discussing some of the changes in business perspective that will result from the ADA. Next we discuss how conventional job analysis Direct all correspondence to: Michael T. Brannick, Tampa, FL 33620. Human ResoManagement Ihwiew, Volume 2, Number 3,1992, pages 171-182 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
Department of F’eychology,University of South Florida, copyright 8 1992 by JAI Press, Inc. ISSN: 10534622
172
HUMAN RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
REVIEW
PLUME
2, NUMBER 3.1992
procedures can be used to determine essential functions for the ADA. We note that although job analysis provides information about essential functions, such information must be combined by some policy; what is an essential function is a business decision informed by job analysis. We show how essential functions impact selection and hiring, and note that conventional job analysis does not appear helpful in determining accommodations. We review what little is known about analyzing jobs for accommodations. We conclude by noting some challenges for job analysis under the ADA and directions for future research.
CHANGING
PERSPECTIVES
Select In vs. Select Out
Since the publication of the Taylor and Russell tables (1939) and Brogden’s (1949) When testing pays of, human resource (HR) professionals have used tests to identify applicants who are predicted to be superior in job performance. The rationale is that even modest test-criterion correlations can provide a real boost to productivity under favorable conditions (e.g., Becker & Huselid 1992; Boudreau 1983; Raju, Burke, & Normand 1990). By rejecting a large proportion of applicants, even though they could have performed the job at some minimal level or better, employers can gain a competitive advantage. Such a perspective represents the status quo, a “select out” philosophy. The ABA, on the other hand, promotes a “select in” philosophy. Under the ADA, the idea is to help applicants qualify for the job rather than turn them away. The ADA requires reasonable accommodation in testing and other hiring procedures, as well as in how the job is done (Solomon 1992). The employer will have to focus on what the applicants can do, and on how to accommodate employees so that all the work gets done. The ADA may prove helpful in teaching employers how best to accomplish such a task. The intent of the ABA is to provide access to jobs for millions of people currently denied work, which is one of life’s central roles. Using Statistical
lnfo~atio~
HR professionsals often use statistical information to make decisions. The ABA, on the other hand, will tend to force employers to consider employment on a case-by-case basis. Making decisions on a case-by-case basis will have several implications for HR practice. For example, much of the evidence in past Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) cases has been statistical, allowing us to infer how a group of people has been treated by an employer (applicant flow data for computing adverse impact). The ADA promotes examining individual cases rather than grouped data. Under the ADA it is generally illegal to ask whether an applicant is disabled as part of the application blank or selection interview (the ADA allows employers to invite individuals with disabilities to identify themselves on an application in order to
JOB ANALYSIS
173
comply with federal regulations, including section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act). Therefore, applicant flow records will be suspect at best and probably useless for showing whether a selection device has adverse impact. Even if it were possible to collect applicant flow information about disabled groups, such information would likely have little use. Disabilities vary widely. Individuals within a class of disabilities (e.g., impaired vision) vary enormously in their ability to complete the same task, or to pass a test. For example, consider three individuals, one seriously nearsighted, one colorblind, and one totally blind. Without accommodation for a job like a pharmacy clerk, two of these could likely operate a cash register, one could sort pills by color, and none could read prices from distant shelves. It will not be very useful to note that a test has adverse impact for a visually impaired group. Proactive
vs. Reactive Postures
Numerous sources (e.g., Frierson 1992) suggest that the ADA requires a reactive rather than proactive posture in handling most employment accommodations. The intention seems to be that the applicant will mention a problem in taking a test or doing one or more tasks on the job in response to a query about the applicant’s capacity to fulfill the essential functions of the job (EEOC 1992, p. 111-l).The employer and applicant will then determine the facts in the case. If the problem in testing or task performance is not related to an essential function of the job, then the employer must accommodate the applicant. If the test or task is related to one or more essential functions, then the employer and applicant will suggest accommodations. If a reasonable accommodation is found, the employer will assume that the accommodation will allow an unbiased assessment of the applicant’s abilities. If no reasonable accommodation is found, then the employer may find another job for the applicant or may reject the applicant. (A similar process is invoked when the problem occurs for a current employee rather than an applicant.) In theory, employers are allowed to select the best qualified applicants. For example, if a disabled applicant received a necessary accommodation and performed more poorly on a test than did a nondisabled applicant, the employer should choose the nondisabled applicant (assuming the test is related to job performance and is consistent with business necessity). Employers would like to have some policy about what disabilities can be accommodated. Otherwise recruiters, interviewers, and hiring managers cannot be sure whether they are investing time and money in applicants who cannot perform the essential functions of the job. When we began a job analysis for selection purposes under the ADA, we hoped to develop a matrix in which common disabilities were rows and essential functions were columns. We could then show where the disabled groups would have problems, and enter accommodations into the problem cells. We no longer believe that such a matrix is possible or even very useful, because of the wide variation of capability within a disabled category (e.g., visual impairment), and the extraordinary number of disabilities.
174
HUMAN
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
REVIEW
VOLUME
2, NUMBER
3.1992
An example of the latter problem is shown by a computer operator who used a mouse for most of his work. He lost the ability to grip with his fingers and could no longer control the mouse. In the first place, we know of no conventional job analysis procedure that would routinely give information about grip sufficient to control a mouse (that is, as part of a general job analysis for ADA as opposed to this specific disability). The accommodation in his case was to find an elastic hair band, glue velcro to the band, and glue some velcro to the mouse. The hair band then slipped over his fingers, and he had no problem using the mouse. The major point is that it is virtually impossible to establish a list of disabilities for a given job, a destination of which disabilities can be accommodated, and what the accommodations shall be without reference to particular disabled individuals. Such a difficulty forces employers to be more reactive than they would like. On the other hand, it is possible to be proactive by developing job families such that people who sustain injuries can move from one job to another with minimal training. One of the main reasons for creating the Dictionary of Occupational Titles was to achieve greater efficiency in moving from one occupation to another (Primoff & Fine 1988). Another proactive step is to determine the essential functions of the job.
D~ER~INING
ESSENTIAL
FUNCTIONS
The ADA requires employers to focus on the essential functions of the job to determine whether a person with a disability is qualified. The law gives the following guidelines for determining essential functions: (a) the position exists to perform the function, (b) there are a limited number of other employees available to perform the function, or among whom the function can be distibuted, and (c) a function is highly specialized and the person in the position is hired for special expertise or ability to perform it. Evidence that can be considered in determining essential functions includes (a) the employer’s judgment, (b) a written job description prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, cc) the amount of time spent performing the function, (d) the consequences of not requiring a person in this job to perform the function, (e) the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, (f) work experience of people who have performed a job in the past and work experience of people who currently perform similar jobs, and (g>other relevant factors (e.g., nature of the work operation, organizational structure) (EEOC 1992,pp. 13-18). Although the ADA does not require a job analysis, one that provides information about the above factors and results in a written job description is clearly helpful. In the following paragraphs, we describe one job analysis effort designed to provide information used in complying with the ADA. We make no claim that the approach is the best approach to identifying essential functions, or that it would be endorsed by the EEOC. It does appear consistent with EEOC guidelines, however. The EEOC (1992 pp. 19-21) noted that a job analysis may be conducted by various methods. The EEOC cautions against a job
JOB ANALYSIS
175
analysis that identifies tasks according to levels of data, people, and things (p. 201, and cautions against judgments of knowledge, skills and abilities where no account is made for how those with a disability may accomplish the same task using different skills and abilities. The EEOC suggests that a job analysis should focus on the results or outcomes of a function rather than focusing solely on how the function is usually done (p. 21). How to Describe Jobs for the ADA Under the ADA, jobs need to be described so that the essential functions of the job can be identified and communicated to people who do not hold the job (applicants, lawyers, etc.>.A wide range of possibilities exist for analyzing jobs (e.g., Gael 1988; McCormick 1979). As Levine, Thomas, and Sistrunk (1988) noted, decisions must be made about the types of descriptors (e.g., work activities, worker activities, machines, etc.), the sources of data (e.g., job analysts, job incumbents, supervisors, etc.), methods of data collection (e.g., observation, interview, open- or closed-ended questionnaire, etc.). The techniques we chose are described along with our rationale. In general, work oriented techniques yield knowledge most easily used in communicating the nature of the work, such as operating a cash register. Worker oriented techniques yield information most easily used in communicating the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to carry out the work (e.g., manual dexterity). Elements of both work and worker oriented techniques are useful in providing information used in complying with the ADA for purposes of selection. The work oriented information is useful in communicating what the job is. The job description will include the job’s major tasks. Such tasks are communicated to applicants and those involved in hiring. (The applicant should be shown all the essential functions and asked if, after training, the applicant will be able to do them all, with or without accommodation.) The worker oriented information is used in devising tests and measures of knowledge, skills, or abilities believed necessary for job performance. Even though inferences must be made about worker characterists for selection, and worker oriented job analysis method provide these directly, work oriented methods are more likely to withstand legal challenges (Thompson & Thompson 1982; Levine, et al. 1988). Therefore, if judgments about knowledge skills, and abilities are gathered, they should be gathered with respect to the essential functions rather than the job as a whole, and one should keep in mind that disabled individuals may be able to accomplish the essential functions using different skills and abilities. The organization sponsoring the job analysis was a large retail drug store company. The jobs were pharmacy assistants (not the pharmacist). One of the jobs primarily involves ringing up merchandise on a cash register, ordering and stocking over-the-counter merchandise, and answering the telephone. The other job involves covering for the first job (all tasks and duties, but for shorter periods of time), and assisting the pharmacist by filling out prescription forms, generating labels through a computer, and fetching drugs and containers. We created a task inventory to list all the tasks for both jobs. The task
176
HUMAN
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
REVIEW
VOLUME 2. NUMBER 3,1@92
inventories were written following observations and interviews with ten incumbents for each job, and interviews with the pharmacists who supervised the incumbents. A draft of the task inventory was reviewed by HR managers of a regional office and by HR management in the corporate office. After the inventory was revised, a large sample of incumbents and their pharmacist supervisors responded to the inventory. The incumbents and pharmacists made different judgments about the tasks. The incumbents responded in several ways to each task, including (a) whether they did the task, (b) relative time spent on the task, and (c) consequences of error in task performance. Incumbents were the source of information about such aspects of tasks becuase they were in the best position to render valid judgments. Tasks were chosen because they focus on the work itself and the products and outcomes of these jobs. We argued that tasks are essential to the degree that they are commonly performed on the job, incumbents spent large amounts of time on them, and they have serious consequences of error if performed poorly. The first two are explicitly mentioned in ADA materials. The consequence of error is not directly mentioned. However, the EEOC (1992) document suggests that the criticalness or consequence of error is important in determining what would happen if a function is not performed. They noted that pilots spend little time landing an aircraft, but if they were not required to land, problems would certainly ensue. Employers are allowed to consider the safety of employees and clients in hiring the disabled. There are some pharmacy mistakes that can have serious consequences. For example, giving people the wrong medicine is hazardous. (Filled prescriptions are stored in wire baskets by last name printed on a white bag. It is common to have two orders by the same last name referring to two different people, and easy enough to give the prescription bag to the wrong person.) We chose not to ask incumbents how essential the tasks were, but rather to identify factors used in determining what is essential. This allows management some flexibility in deciding what is essential, based on the data. We asked pharmacists to make two task related judgments: (a) how essential the task was in getting the work done, and (b) how many people were available to cover the task if the person primarily responsible for doing the task failed to perform it. Under the ADA, the function is essential if the positions exist to perform the function. Therefore, we asked pharmacists, the first level of supervision for these jobs, how essential the tasks were in getting the job done. The ADA also considers whether there are other people who can perform the function. The pharmacists were also asked to render a judgment on this. The ADA finally considers whether the function is higly specialized, and the person is hired for special expertise. During the observation/interview stage of the job analysis, all pharmacists told us that this was not the case, so we did not ask for judgments from the pharmacists in this area. We combined the information using four criteria to generate a list of essential tasks. The task was considered essential if it met one of four conditions: t a) the pharmacists thought it was essential, (b) the task had serious conse-
JOB ANALYSIS
177
quences of error, (c) no one was available to cover the task, and (d) over 70 percent of the incumbents did the task and they reported spending an above average amount of time on it. Note that it was our judgment of what the policy should be that determined the list of essential tasks, which we called the essential functions. It is not certain that the retail drug chain’s management would have arrived at the same list (although we reviewed the list with them and they found it acceptable). Nor is it certain that the EEOC would find such a list acceptable. The most troubling thing to us was that we, rather than management, decided what was essential. There are several techniques used to elicit policy from individuals. Probably the most relevant to the current problem is policy capturing (e.g., Brannick & Brannick 1989; Hammond & Wascoe 1980; Slavic and Lichtenstein 1971). Multiple regression is used to model a series of judgments made by a judge to determine the importance of various aspects of an object. In this case the judge would be one or more representatives of management, the objects would be tasks, and the independent variables would be aspects of tasks, such as the centrality of the task, the number of others available to perform the task, time spent, and so forth. The result of policy capturing is an explicit statement of how the various elements of the task combine to determine the degree of essentiality of the task. Such a policy would be helpful in communicating how tasks are determined to be essential, and in achieving consistency or reliability in designating tasks as essential. On the other hand, in this particular company the legal opinion is that an explicit policy is a poor option because, if a task is labeled “essential” by mistake, it can be shown to be against company policy, and the company could be liable for damages. Two other steps were completed in the job analysis. The job analysts took the essential tasks and estimated sensory and motor requirements for each. We used the list of sensory and motor requirements from the United States Employment Services Handbook for Analyzing Jobs, but added a cell for “twisting,” which is important for lower back disability (Hollenbeck, Ilgen, & Crampton 1992). The main result of this step of job analysis was a table showing how the sensory and motor skills requirments of the essential tasks as they are typically done. We now believe that preparing such a table was an error. It fails to show accommodations, and appears as if the employer is attempting to rule out disabled individuals by showing that they cannot perform some essential functions. Physical abilities are particularly problematic (e.g., “twisting”) because there are often alternative ways to accomplish the task. Such a table could be used as an aid for thought about possible accommodations for the tasks. However, the variety of disabilities is so large that such an effort is likely to prove useless. Instead, it is probably more effective to consider disabled individuals on a case-by-case basis, and to contact groups that routinely provide recommendations for accommodations. Finally, pharmacists estimated the importance of several different knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for completing the job. Such judgments
178
HUMAN
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
REVIEW
VOLUME
2. NUMBER
3.1992
are useful for selection in general, but not specifically for the ADA. Note that the judgments were made about the job as a whole, rather than about each task. There is a practical constraint if management is to make judgments about tasks. There may be 20 or more aspects of knowledge, skill, and ability, and perhaps 200 tasks. Pharmacists will generally not take the time to make 4,000 judgments. Job analysts could make the judgments, but neither managers nor job analysts is uniquely qualified to make the inferential leap from task to ability. The analysts may know more about human abilities, the supervisor more about the task.
DEFINING
“ESSENTIAL”
AND “REASONABLE”
The ADA is an invitation to litigation because the terms “essential” in essential function and “reasonable” in reasonable accommodation are vaguely defined. According to the ADA, any accommodation is reasonable unless it imposes an undue hardship on the employer. In both cases, the law specifies factors that are to be considered, but not how the factors are to be combined. Factors to be considered in reasonable accommodation (undue hardship) include (a) the nature and cost of the accommodation, (b) the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in providing the accommodation, (c) the staffing levels of the facility or facilities, (d) the effect on expenses and resources of the facility or facilities, (e> the overall financial resources of the company or employer, (f1 the geographic, administrative, and fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities to the employer, and (g) the impact of the accommodation on the ability of other employees to do their jobs. Note that the salary of the disabled employee is prohibited from consideration. That is, employers cannot spend different amounts of money for accommodation based on salary differences among the disabled. We determined essential tasks by combining information from conventional job analysis (as described earlier). The combination strategy made sense to us, but others could have combined them differently, resulting in a different list of essential tasks. A clear policy on determining essential functions and reasonable accommodations should go a long way to avoiding millions of dollars in attorneys’ fees and settlements. U~ortunately, legal counsel for many firms worried about EEO before the ADA have advised the firms to “hide the ball,” that is, to avoid keeping records and explict policies about hiring. The lack of policy and records makes it difficult for the court to use the employers’ own records against them. The technology of decision analysis could be used to formulate policy negotiated by business and disabled groups. Decision analysis has proved useful in settling disputes in such diverse areas as land use managment (Keeney & Raiffa 1976), highway design (Mumpower 8r.Adelman 19801, and modifications to nuclear power plants (Brannick & Darling 1991). A much more likely (and
JOB ANALYSIS
179
costly) scenario is a series of court decisions in which more explicit definitions of essential and reasonable laws will emerge. Selection
The ADA requires that employers make reasonable accommodation in the hiring process. An example of what might be considered a reasonable accommodation is reading a paper-and-pencil test to a blind applicant. Making reasonable accommodation in testing applicants raises some questions about test validation including (a) whether changing the medium changes the psychometric properties of the test, (b) whether validation studies are feasible with disabled groups, and Cc>whether disabilities ought to be grouped for validation purposes. According to the Standards for Educational and ~ycholo~cal Testing (1985), claims made by test authors and publishers about the psychometric properties of a test cannot be generalized to a modiCed version of the test unless there are data showing that the properties of the test have not been affected by the change. Gathering evidence that the changes in the test made for accomm~ation have not altered the psychometric characteristics of the test is difficult because there may be too few disabled test takers in a given group, and because there is often significant variability within a group (e.g., vision or hearing impaired). The Educational Testing Service (ETS) (Bennett, Rock, & Kaplan 1985; Braun, Ragosta, & Kaplan 1986; Jones & Ragosta 1982; Ragosta & Kaplan 1986) and the United States Office of Personnel ~~agement (Heaton, Nelson, & Nester 1980; Nester 1984; Nester & Sapinkopf 1982) have examined test characteristics within different disabled populations. Psychometric characteristics such as level of test performance, reliability, speededness, and differential item performance have been studied on paper-and-pencil tests of cognitive ability such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). Disabled groups studied included hearing impaired taking a regular version, learning disabled students taking a cassette version, a regular version, or a large-type version, physically handicapped students taking a regular version, visually impaired students taking a braille version or a regular version. The data showed comparable performance for all groups on reliability, speededness and unexpected differential item performance. There were differences across groups on performance level. Learning disabled and hearing impaired (especially pre-lingually deaf) showed lower scores. Hearing impaired regular students scored higher on the mathematical section of the SAT compared to their nondisabled peers. Although this type of research is useful in some respects, it is problematic in others. In those groups where there is little or no within group variability in terms of the disability (e.g., legally blind, pre-lineally deaf), psychometric characteristic results are fairly clear. On the other hand, groups where there is a great deal of variability in terms of the disability (e.g., learning disability, physically disabled), the results are more ambiguous,
180
HUMAN
CHALLENGES
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
REVIEW
VOLUME
2. NUMBER
3.1992
FOR CONVENTIONAL JOB ANALYSIS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
1. Job analysis gives a snapshot of the job as it is. It therefore provides little information about accommodation. Task inventories and available job design inventories (e.g., Campion, 1988; Campion & Thayer 1985; Hackman & Oldham 1975) provide little information about how tasks can be shifted from position to position. Conventional job analysis also does not lend itself to tracking changes in the job. Typically, the entire job is reanalyzed periodically rather than tracked for changes. 2. What little we know about analyzing jobs for disabled workers is summarized in Kochhar and Armstrong (1988). Such an analysis must focus on the aspects of the job for which the disabled worker has difficulty, including physical attributes (e.g., hand force), mental attributes (e.g., sensation, cognition, affect), the workplace (tools and equipment), and the environment (e.g., air quality, noise, temperature). Note that this means having to conduct a job analysis each time a new request for accommodation is made. Work on increasing the efficiency of such an analysis is clearly warranted. 3. Job analysis typically focuses on the job rather than the position. The job is an abstract entity held by more than one person. The position is the work of a single individual. Under the ADA, decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, and the circumstances of the position will have to be considered. For example, the number of pharmacy assistants varies as a function of the pharmacy sales volume. The jobs are the same, but there are more people working in high volume stores. This means that one store could accommodate a disabled applicant but another store could not. Thus job analysis methods will probably have to attend more fully to differences between positions within a job title. 4. It would be helpful to have a method for organizing the resources available for accommodation. What are the non-essential tasks? How can they be distributed? 5. In our job analysis, we did not ask what would happen if the task was left undone, although we asked for judgments of criticality. Fine (1988) wrote that if a task is done to accomplish a job, then it is essential. Although his writing was done before the ADA went into effect, it makes sense in describing the job as it currently exists. Asking what would happen if the task were not required does not lend itself well to a closed ended format for a task inventory. Either a new closed ended format, or some other means of achieving a reliable and valid assessment of this aspect should be developed. 6. Job analysis does not typically cover the subtleties of fitting into a team or into a company image. Should someone with severe facial disfigurement be placed in a public contact job? Note that this goes back to determining what the essential functions of a job are. Similar situations occur when mentally retarded workers are placed in situations requiring social competence. Future research should develop and evaluate techniques that incorporate more subtle aspects of jobs.
181
JOB ANALYSIS
REFERENCES Bennett, R. E., D. A. Rock, and B. A. Kaplan. 1985. The psychometric characteristics of the SAT for nine handicapped groups. ETS Research Report 85-49. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Becker, B. E. and M. A. Huselid. 1992. “Direct Estimates of SDy and the Implications for Utility Analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology 77: 227-233. Boudreau, J. W. 1983. “Economic Considerations in Estimating the Utility of Human Resource Productivity Improvement Programs.” Fersortnel Psychology 36: 551576. Brannick, M. T. and J. P. Brannick. 1989. “Nonlinear Noncompensatory Processes in Performance Evaluation.‘~Grguniz~tion~~ Behuvior & Human Recision Processes 44: 97-122. Brannick, M. T. and R. W. R. Darling. 1991. “Specifying Importance Weights Consistent with a Covariance Structure.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 395-410. Braun, H., M. Ragosta, and B. Kaplan. 1986. The predictive validity of the Scholastic Aptitude Test for disabled students. ETS Research report 86-38. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Brogden, H. E. 1949. “When Testing Pays Off.” Personnel Aychology 4: 171-185. Campion, M. A. 1988. “Interdisciplinary Approaches to Job Design: A Constructive Replication with Extensions.” Journal of Applied Psychology 73: 467-481. Campion, M. A. and P. W. Thayer. 1985. Development and Field Evaluation of an Interdisciplinary Measure of Job Design. Journal of Applied ~y~~~og~ 70: 2943. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 1992. A Technical Assistance Manual on the Employment Provisions (Title I) of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: Author. Fine, S. A. 1988. “Functional Job Analysis.” Pp. 1019-1035 in The Job Analysis Handbook for Business, Industry, and Government (Vol. 21, edited by S. Gael. New York: Wiley. Frierson, J. G. 1992. Employer’s Guide to the Amercians with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: Bureau of National AfFairs. Gael, S. (ed.11988. The Job Analysis Handbook for Business, Industry and Government. New York: Wiley. Hackman, J. R. and G. R. Oldham. 1975. “Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of ~p~ied ~y~ho~gy 60: 159-170. Hammond, K. R. and N. E. Wascoe. (eds.) 1980. Re~~~~t~~ of BrunswikQ Representative Design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Heaton, S. M., A. V. Nelson, and M. A. Nester. 1980. Guide forAdminLstering Examinations to Handicapped Individuals for Employment Purposes (PRR 80-16). Washington, DC: U. S. Office of Personnel Management. Hollenbeck, J. R., D. R. Ilgen, and S. M. Crampton. 1992. “Lower Back Disability in Occupational Settings: A Review of the Literature from a Human Resource Management View.” Personnel Psychology 45: 247-278. Jones, D. H. and M. Ragosta. 1982. Predictive validity of the SAT on two handicapped groups: The deaf and the learning disabled. ETS Research Report 82-9. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Keeney, R. L. and H. RaifTa. 1976. Decsions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Troop. New York: Wiley.
182
HUMAN
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
REVIEW
VOLUME
2. NUMBER
3,1992
Kochhar, D. S. and T. J. Armstrong. 1988. “Designing Jobs for Handicapped Employees.” Pp. 288-311 in The Job Analysis Handbook for Business, Industry, and Government (Vol. l), edited by S. Gael. New York: Wiley. Levine, E. L., J. N. Thomas, and F. Sistrunk. 1988. “Selecting a Job Analysis Approach. Pp. 339-352 in The Job Analysis Handbook for Business, Industry, and Government (Vol. l), edited by S. Gael. New York: Wiley. McCormick, E. J. 1979. Job Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: AMACOM. Mumpower, J. and L. Adelman. 1980. “The Application of Bnmswikian Methodology to Policy Formation.” In Realizations of Brunswiks Representative Design, edited by K. R. Hammond and N. E. Wascoe. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nester, M. A. 1984. “Employment Testing for Handicapped People.” Public Personnel
Management
13: 417-434.
Nester, M. A. and R. C. Sapinkopf. 1982. A Federal Employment Test Modified for Deaf Applicants (OPRD 82-7). Washington, DC: U. S. Office of Personnel Management. Primoff, E. S. and S. A. Fine. 1988. “A History of Job Analysis.” Pp. 14-29 in The Job Analysis Handbook for Business, Industry, and Government (Vol. 11, edited by S. Gael. New York: Wiley. Ragosta, M. and B. A. Kaplan. 1986. A survey of handicapped students taking special test administrations of the SAT and GRE. ETS Research Report 86-5. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Raju, N. S., M. J. Burke, and J. Normand. 1990. “A New Approach for Utility Analysis.”
Journal of Applied Psychology
75: 3-U.
Slavic, P. and S. Lichtenstein. 1971. “Comparison of Bayesian and Regression Approaches to the Study of Information Processing in Judgment.” Organizational
Behavior Solomon,
and Human Performance
6: 649-744.
C. M. 1992. “What the ADA Means to the Nondisabled.”
Personnel Journal:
70-79. Sparks,
C. P. 1988. “Legal
Basis for Job Analysis.”
Pp. 37-47 in The Job Analysis (Vol. 11,edited by S. Gael. New
Handbook for Business, Industry, and Government York: Wiley.
for Educational and Psychological Testing. 1985. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Taylor, H. C. and J. T. Russell. 1939. “The Relationship of Validity Coefficients to the Practical Effectiveness of Tests in Selection: Tables and Discussion.” Journal of
Standards
Applied
Psychology
23: 565-576.
Thompson, D. E. and T. A. Thompson. 1982. “Court Standards for Job Analysis Validation.” Personnel Psychology 35: 665-874.
in Test
The ADA will change the way employers screen and hire applicants. The notion of essential functions is central to hiring under the ADA. We explore the meaning of essential functions, including changes in perspective due to the ADA, how to conduct a job analysis to provide information in determining essential functions, and the role of essential functions in selection. We conclude by noting some challenges for job analysis under the ADA and directions for research.
Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against a qualified person with a disability in employment. The ADA defines a qualified person with a disability as “an individual with a disability who . . . , with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such a position” (EEOC 1992, p. 11). Determining the essential functions of the job, therefore, will be necessary for fair employment practices under the ADA. Although the ADA does not require a job analysis to determine essential functions, it is difficult to see how the essential functions could be determined without job analysis. Sparks (1988) noted that job analysis is essentially required to justify tests before the courts (see also Thompson & Thompson 1982). Our purpose is to explore the meaning of “essential function” as outlined by the ADA. We begin by discussing some of the changes in business perspective that will result from the ADA. Next we discuss how conventional job analysis Direct all correspondence to: Michael T. Brannick, Tampa, FL 33620. Human ResoManagement Ihwiew, Volume 2, Number 3,1992, pages 171-182 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
Department of F’eychology,University of South Florida, copyright 8 1992 by JAI Press, Inc. ISSN: 10534622
172
HUMAN RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
REVIEW
PLUME
2, NUMBER 3.1992
procedures can be used to determine essential functions for the ADA. We note that although job analysis provides information about essential functions, such information must be combined by some policy; what is an essential function is a business decision informed by job analysis. We show how essential functions impact selection and hiring, and note that conventional job analysis does not appear helpful in determining accommodations. We review what little is known about analyzing jobs for accommodations. We conclude by noting some challenges for job analysis under the ADA and directions for future research.
CHANGING
PERSPECTIVES
Select In vs. Select Out
Since the publication of the Taylor and Russell tables (1939) and Brogden’s (1949) When testing pays of, human resource (HR) professionals have used tests to identify applicants who are predicted to be superior in job performance. The rationale is that even modest test-criterion correlations can provide a real boost to productivity under favorable conditions (e.g., Becker & Huselid 1992; Boudreau 1983; Raju, Burke, & Normand 1990). By rejecting a large proportion of applicants, even though they could have performed the job at some minimal level or better, employers can gain a competitive advantage. Such a perspective represents the status quo, a “select out” philosophy. The ABA, on the other hand, promotes a “select in” philosophy. Under the ADA, the idea is to help applicants qualify for the job rather than turn them away. The ADA requires reasonable accommodation in testing and other hiring procedures, as well as in how the job is done (Solomon 1992). The employer will have to focus on what the applicants can do, and on how to accommodate employees so that all the work gets done. The ADA may prove helpful in teaching employers how best to accomplish such a task. The intent of the ABA is to provide access to jobs for millions of people currently denied work, which is one of life’s central roles. Using Statistical
lnfo~atio~
HR professionsals often use statistical information to make decisions. The ABA, on the other hand, will tend to force employers to consider employment on a case-by-case basis. Making decisions on a case-by-case basis will have several implications for HR practice. For example, much of the evidence in past Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) cases has been statistical, allowing us to infer how a group of people has been treated by an employer (applicant flow data for computing adverse impact). The ADA promotes examining individual cases rather than grouped data. Under the ADA it is generally illegal to ask whether an applicant is disabled as part of the application blank or selection interview (the ADA allows employers to invite individuals with disabilities to identify themselves on an application in order to
JOB ANALYSIS
173
comply with federal regulations, including section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act). Therefore, applicant flow records will be suspect at best and probably useless for showing whether a selection device has adverse impact. Even if it were possible to collect applicant flow information about disabled groups, such information would likely have little use. Disabilities vary widely. Individuals within a class of disabilities (e.g., impaired vision) vary enormously in their ability to complete the same task, or to pass a test. For example, consider three individuals, one seriously nearsighted, one colorblind, and one totally blind. Without accommodation for a job like a pharmacy clerk, two of these could likely operate a cash register, one could sort pills by color, and none could read prices from distant shelves. It will not be very useful to note that a test has adverse impact for a visually impaired group. Proactive
vs. Reactive Postures
Numerous sources (e.g., Frierson 1992) suggest that the ADA requires a reactive rather than proactive posture in handling most employment accommodations. The intention seems to be that the applicant will mention a problem in taking a test or doing one or more tasks on the job in response to a query about the applicant’s capacity to fulfill the essential functions of the job (EEOC 1992, p. 111-l).The employer and applicant will then determine the facts in the case. If the problem in testing or task performance is not related to an essential function of the job, then the employer must accommodate the applicant. If the test or task is related to one or more essential functions, then the employer and applicant will suggest accommodations. If a reasonable accommodation is found, the employer will assume that the accommodation will allow an unbiased assessment of the applicant’s abilities. If no reasonable accommodation is found, then the employer may find another job for the applicant or may reject the applicant. (A similar process is invoked when the problem occurs for a current employee rather than an applicant.) In theory, employers are allowed to select the best qualified applicants. For example, if a disabled applicant received a necessary accommodation and performed more poorly on a test than did a nondisabled applicant, the employer should choose the nondisabled applicant (assuming the test is related to job performance and is consistent with business necessity). Employers would like to have some policy about what disabilities can be accommodated. Otherwise recruiters, interviewers, and hiring managers cannot be sure whether they are investing time and money in applicants who cannot perform the essential functions of the job. When we began a job analysis for selection purposes under the ADA, we hoped to develop a matrix in which common disabilities were rows and essential functions were columns. We could then show where the disabled groups would have problems, and enter accommodations into the problem cells. We no longer believe that such a matrix is possible or even very useful, because of the wide variation of capability within a disabled category (e.g., visual impairment), and the extraordinary number of disabilities.
174
HUMAN
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
REVIEW
VOLUME
2, NUMBER
3.1992
An example of the latter problem is shown by a computer operator who used a mouse for most of his work. He lost the ability to grip with his fingers and could no longer control the mouse. In the first place, we know of no conventional job analysis procedure that would routinely give information about grip sufficient to control a mouse (that is, as part of a general job analysis for ADA as opposed to this specific disability). The accommodation in his case was to find an elastic hair band, glue velcro to the band, and glue some velcro to the mouse. The hair band then slipped over his fingers, and he had no problem using the mouse. The major point is that it is virtually impossible to establish a list of disabilities for a given job, a destination of which disabilities can be accommodated, and what the accommodations shall be without reference to particular disabled individuals. Such a difficulty forces employers to be more reactive than they would like. On the other hand, it is possible to be proactive by developing job families such that people who sustain injuries can move from one job to another with minimal training. One of the main reasons for creating the Dictionary of Occupational Titles was to achieve greater efficiency in moving from one occupation to another (Primoff & Fine 1988). Another proactive step is to determine the essential functions of the job.
D~ER~INING
ESSENTIAL
FUNCTIONS
The ADA requires employers to focus on the essential functions of the job to determine whether a person with a disability is qualified. The law gives the following guidelines for determining essential functions: (a) the position exists to perform the function, (b) there are a limited number of other employees available to perform the function, or among whom the function can be distibuted, and (c) a function is highly specialized and the person in the position is hired for special expertise or ability to perform it. Evidence that can be considered in determining essential functions includes (a) the employer’s judgment, (b) a written job description prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, cc) the amount of time spent performing the function, (d) the consequences of not requiring a person in this job to perform the function, (e) the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, (f) work experience of people who have performed a job in the past and work experience of people who currently perform similar jobs, and (g>other relevant factors (e.g., nature of the work operation, organizational structure) (EEOC 1992,pp. 13-18). Although the ADA does not require a job analysis, one that provides information about the above factors and results in a written job description is clearly helpful. In the following paragraphs, we describe one job analysis effort designed to provide information used in complying with the ADA. We make no claim that the approach is the best approach to identifying essential functions, or that it would be endorsed by the EEOC. It does appear consistent with EEOC guidelines, however. The EEOC (1992 pp. 19-21) noted that a job analysis may be conducted by various methods. The EEOC cautions against a job
JOB ANALYSIS
175
analysis that identifies tasks according to levels of data, people, and things (p. 201, and cautions against judgments of knowledge, skills and abilities where no account is made for how those with a disability may accomplish the same task using different skills and abilities. The EEOC suggests that a job analysis should focus on the results or outcomes of a function rather than focusing solely on how the function is usually done (p. 21). How to Describe Jobs for the ADA Under the ADA, jobs need to be described so that the essential functions of the job can be identified and communicated to people who do not hold the job (applicants, lawyers, etc.>.A wide range of possibilities exist for analyzing jobs (e.g., Gael 1988; McCormick 1979). As Levine, Thomas, and Sistrunk (1988) noted, decisions must be made about the types of descriptors (e.g., work activities, worker activities, machines, etc.), the sources of data (e.g., job analysts, job incumbents, supervisors, etc.), methods of data collection (e.g., observation, interview, open- or closed-ended questionnaire, etc.). The techniques we chose are described along with our rationale. In general, work oriented techniques yield knowledge most easily used in communicating the nature of the work, such as operating a cash register. Worker oriented techniques yield information most easily used in communicating the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to carry out the work (e.g., manual dexterity). Elements of both work and worker oriented techniques are useful in providing information used in complying with the ADA for purposes of selection. The work oriented information is useful in communicating what the job is. The job description will include the job’s major tasks. Such tasks are communicated to applicants and those involved in hiring. (The applicant should be shown all the essential functions and asked if, after training, the applicant will be able to do them all, with or without accommodation.) The worker oriented information is used in devising tests and measures of knowledge, skills, or abilities believed necessary for job performance. Even though inferences must be made about worker characterists for selection, and worker oriented job analysis method provide these directly, work oriented methods are more likely to withstand legal challenges (Thompson & Thompson 1982; Levine, et al. 1988). Therefore, if judgments about knowledge skills, and abilities are gathered, they should be gathered with respect to the essential functions rather than the job as a whole, and one should keep in mind that disabled individuals may be able to accomplish the essential functions using different skills and abilities. The organization sponsoring the job analysis was a large retail drug store company. The jobs were pharmacy assistants (not the pharmacist). One of the jobs primarily involves ringing up merchandise on a cash register, ordering and stocking over-the-counter merchandise, and answering the telephone. The other job involves covering for the first job (all tasks and duties, but for shorter periods of time), and assisting the pharmacist by filling out prescription forms, generating labels through a computer, and fetching drugs and containers. We created a task inventory to list all the tasks for both jobs. The task
176
HUMAN
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
REVIEW
VOLUME 2. NUMBER 3,1@92
inventories were written following observations and interviews with ten incumbents for each job, and interviews with the pharmacists who supervised the incumbents. A draft of the task inventory was reviewed by HR managers of a regional office and by HR management in the corporate office. After the inventory was revised, a large sample of incumbents and their pharmacist supervisors responded to the inventory. The incumbents and pharmacists made different judgments about the tasks. The incumbents responded in several ways to each task, including (a) whether they did the task, (b) relative time spent on the task, and (c) consequences of error in task performance. Incumbents were the source of information about such aspects of tasks becuase they were in the best position to render valid judgments. Tasks were chosen because they focus on the work itself and the products and outcomes of these jobs. We argued that tasks are essential to the degree that they are commonly performed on the job, incumbents spent large amounts of time on them, and they have serious consequences of error if performed poorly. The first two are explicitly mentioned in ADA materials. The consequence of error is not directly mentioned. However, the EEOC (1992) document suggests that the criticalness or consequence of error is important in determining what would happen if a function is not performed. They noted that pilots spend little time landing an aircraft, but if they were not required to land, problems would certainly ensue. Employers are allowed to consider the safety of employees and clients in hiring the disabled. There are some pharmacy mistakes that can have serious consequences. For example, giving people the wrong medicine is hazardous. (Filled prescriptions are stored in wire baskets by last name printed on a white bag. It is common to have two orders by the same last name referring to two different people, and easy enough to give the prescription bag to the wrong person.) We chose not to ask incumbents how essential the tasks were, but rather to identify factors used in determining what is essential. This allows management some flexibility in deciding what is essential, based on the data. We asked pharmacists to make two task related judgments: (a) how essential the task was in getting the work done, and (b) how many people were available to cover the task if the person primarily responsible for doing the task failed to perform it. Under the ADA, the function is essential if the positions exist to perform the function. Therefore, we asked pharmacists, the first level of supervision for these jobs, how essential the tasks were in getting the job done. The ADA also considers whether there are other people who can perform the function. The pharmacists were also asked to render a judgment on this. The ADA finally considers whether the function is higly specialized, and the person is hired for special expertise. During the observation/interview stage of the job analysis, all pharmacists told us that this was not the case, so we did not ask for judgments from the pharmacists in this area. We combined the information using four criteria to generate a list of essential tasks. The task was considered essential if it met one of four conditions: t a) the pharmacists thought it was essential, (b) the task had serious conse-
JOB ANALYSIS
177
quences of error, (c) no one was available to cover the task, and (d) over 70 percent of the incumbents did the task and they reported spending an above average amount of time on it. Note that it was our judgment of what the policy should be that determined the list of essential tasks, which we called the essential functions. It is not certain that the retail drug chain’s management would have arrived at the same list (although we reviewed the list with them and they found it acceptable). Nor is it certain that the EEOC would find such a list acceptable. The most troubling thing to us was that we, rather than management, decided what was essential. There are several techniques used to elicit policy from individuals. Probably the most relevant to the current problem is policy capturing (e.g., Brannick & Brannick 1989; Hammond & Wascoe 1980; Slavic and Lichtenstein 1971). Multiple regression is used to model a series of judgments made by a judge to determine the importance of various aspects of an object. In this case the judge would be one or more representatives of management, the objects would be tasks, and the independent variables would be aspects of tasks, such as the centrality of the task, the number of others available to perform the task, time spent, and so forth. The result of policy capturing is an explicit statement of how the various elements of the task combine to determine the degree of essentiality of the task. Such a policy would be helpful in communicating how tasks are determined to be essential, and in achieving consistency or reliability in designating tasks as essential. On the other hand, in this particular company the legal opinion is that an explicit policy is a poor option because, if a task is labeled “essential” by mistake, it can be shown to be against company policy, and the company could be liable for damages. Two other steps were completed in the job analysis. The job analysts took the essential tasks and estimated sensory and motor requirements for each. We used the list of sensory and motor requirements from the United States Employment Services Handbook for Analyzing Jobs, but added a cell for “twisting,” which is important for lower back disability (Hollenbeck, Ilgen, & Crampton 1992). The main result of this step of job analysis was a table showing how the sensory and motor skills requirments of the essential tasks as they are typically done. We now believe that preparing such a table was an error. It fails to show accommodations, and appears as if the employer is attempting to rule out disabled individuals by showing that they cannot perform some essential functions. Physical abilities are particularly problematic (e.g., “twisting”) because there are often alternative ways to accomplish the task. Such a table could be used as an aid for thought about possible accommodations for the tasks. However, the variety of disabilities is so large that such an effort is likely to prove useless. Instead, it is probably more effective to consider disabled individuals on a case-by-case basis, and to contact groups that routinely provide recommendations for accommodations. Finally, pharmacists estimated the importance of several different knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for completing the job. Such judgments
178
HUMAN
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
REVIEW
VOLUME
2. NUMBER
3.1992
are useful for selection in general, but not specifically for the ADA. Note that the judgments were made about the job as a whole, rather than about each task. There is a practical constraint if management is to make judgments about tasks. There may be 20 or more aspects of knowledge, skill, and ability, and perhaps 200 tasks. Pharmacists will generally not take the time to make 4,000 judgments. Job analysts could make the judgments, but neither managers nor job analysts is uniquely qualified to make the inferential leap from task to ability. The analysts may know more about human abilities, the supervisor more about the task.
DEFINING
“ESSENTIAL”
AND “REASONABLE”
The ADA is an invitation to litigation because the terms “essential” in essential function and “reasonable” in reasonable accommodation are vaguely defined. According to the ADA, any accommodation is reasonable unless it imposes an undue hardship on the employer. In both cases, the law specifies factors that are to be considered, but not how the factors are to be combined. Factors to be considered in reasonable accommodation (undue hardship) include (a) the nature and cost of the accommodation, (b) the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in providing the accommodation, (c) the staffing levels of the facility or facilities, (d) the effect on expenses and resources of the facility or facilities, (e> the overall financial resources of the company or employer, (f1 the geographic, administrative, and fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities to the employer, and (g) the impact of the accommodation on the ability of other employees to do their jobs. Note that the salary of the disabled employee is prohibited from consideration. That is, employers cannot spend different amounts of money for accommodation based on salary differences among the disabled. We determined essential tasks by combining information from conventional job analysis (as described earlier). The combination strategy made sense to us, but others could have combined them differently, resulting in a different list of essential tasks. A clear policy on determining essential functions and reasonable accommodations should go a long way to avoiding millions of dollars in attorneys’ fees and settlements. U~ortunately, legal counsel for many firms worried about EEO before the ADA have advised the firms to “hide the ball,” that is, to avoid keeping records and explict policies about hiring. The lack of policy and records makes it difficult for the court to use the employers’ own records against them. The technology of decision analysis could be used to formulate policy negotiated by business and disabled groups. Decision analysis has proved useful in settling disputes in such diverse areas as land use managment (Keeney & Raiffa 1976), highway design (Mumpower 8r.Adelman 19801, and modifications to nuclear power plants (Brannick & Darling 1991). A much more likely (and
JOB ANALYSIS
179
costly) scenario is a series of court decisions in which more explicit definitions of essential and reasonable laws will emerge. Selection
The ADA requires that employers make reasonable accommodation in the hiring process. An example of what might be considered a reasonable accommodation is reading a paper-and-pencil test to a blind applicant. Making reasonable accommodation in testing applicants raises some questions about test validation including (a) whether changing the medium changes the psychometric properties of the test, (b) whether validation studies are feasible with disabled groups, and Cc>whether disabilities ought to be grouped for validation purposes. According to the Standards for Educational and ~ycholo~cal Testing (1985), claims made by test authors and publishers about the psychometric properties of a test cannot be generalized to a modiCed version of the test unless there are data showing that the properties of the test have not been affected by the change. Gathering evidence that the changes in the test made for accomm~ation have not altered the psychometric characteristics of the test is difficult because there may be too few disabled test takers in a given group, and because there is often significant variability within a group (e.g., vision or hearing impaired). The Educational Testing Service (ETS) (Bennett, Rock, & Kaplan 1985; Braun, Ragosta, & Kaplan 1986; Jones & Ragosta 1982; Ragosta & Kaplan 1986) and the United States Office of Personnel ~~agement (Heaton, Nelson, & Nester 1980; Nester 1984; Nester & Sapinkopf 1982) have examined test characteristics within different disabled populations. Psychometric characteristics such as level of test performance, reliability, speededness, and differential item performance have been studied on paper-and-pencil tests of cognitive ability such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). Disabled groups studied included hearing impaired taking a regular version, learning disabled students taking a cassette version, a regular version, or a large-type version, physically handicapped students taking a regular version, visually impaired students taking a braille version or a regular version. The data showed comparable performance for all groups on reliability, speededness and unexpected differential item performance. There were differences across groups on performance level. Learning disabled and hearing impaired (especially pre-lingually deaf) showed lower scores. Hearing impaired regular students scored higher on the mathematical section of the SAT compared to their nondisabled peers. Although this type of research is useful in some respects, it is problematic in others. In those groups where there is little or no within group variability in terms of the disability (e.g., legally blind, pre-lineally deaf), psychometric characteristic results are fairly clear. On the other hand, groups where there is a great deal of variability in terms of the disability (e.g., learning disability, physically disabled), the results are more ambiguous,
180
HUMAN
CHALLENGES
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
REVIEW
VOLUME
2. NUMBER
3.1992
FOR CONVENTIONAL JOB ANALYSIS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
1. Job analysis gives a snapshot of the job as it is. It therefore provides little information about accommodation. Task inventories and available job design inventories (e.g., Campion, 1988; Campion & Thayer 1985; Hackman & Oldham 1975) provide little information about how tasks can be shifted from position to position. Conventional job analysis also does not lend itself to tracking changes in the job. Typically, the entire job is reanalyzed periodically rather than tracked for changes. 2. What little we know about analyzing jobs for disabled workers is summarized in Kochhar and Armstrong (1988). Such an analysis must focus on the aspects of the job for which the disabled worker has difficulty, including physical attributes (e.g., hand force), mental attributes (e.g., sensation, cognition, affect), the workplace (tools and equipment), and the environment (e.g., air quality, noise, temperature). Note that this means having to conduct a job analysis each time a new request for accommodation is made. Work on increasing the efficiency of such an analysis is clearly warranted. 3. Job analysis typically focuses on the job rather than the position. The job is an abstract entity held by more than one person. The position is the work of a single individual. Under the ADA, decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, and the circumstances of the position will have to be considered. For example, the number of pharmacy assistants varies as a function of the pharmacy sales volume. The jobs are the same, but there are more people working in high volume stores. This means that one store could accommodate a disabled applicant but another store could not. Thus job analysis methods will probably have to attend more fully to differences between positions within a job title. 4. It would be helpful to have a method for organizing the resources available for accommodation. What are the non-essential tasks? How can they be distributed? 5. In our job analysis, we did not ask what would happen if the task was left undone, although we asked for judgments of criticality. Fine (1988) wrote that if a task is done to accomplish a job, then it is essential. Although his writing was done before the ADA went into effect, it makes sense in describing the job as it currently exists. Asking what would happen if the task were not required does not lend itself well to a closed ended format for a task inventory. Either a new closed ended format, or some other means of achieving a reliable and valid assessment of this aspect should be developed. 6. Job analysis does not typically cover the subtleties of fitting into a team or into a company image. Should someone with severe facial disfigurement be placed in a public contact job? Note that this goes back to determining what the essential functions of a job are. Similar situations occur when mentally retarded workers are placed in situations requiring social competence. Future research should develop and evaluate techniques that incorporate more subtle aspects of jobs.
181
JOB ANALYSIS
REFERENCES Bennett, R. E., D. A. Rock, and B. A. Kaplan. 1985. The psychometric characteristics of the SAT for nine handicapped groups. ETS Research Report 85-49. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Becker, B. E. and M. A. Huselid. 1992. “Direct Estimates of SDy and the Implications for Utility Analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology 77: 227-233. Boudreau, J. W. 1983. “Economic Considerations in Estimating the Utility of Human Resource Productivity Improvement Programs.” Fersortnel Psychology 36: 551576. Brannick, M. T. and J. P. Brannick. 1989. “Nonlinear Noncompensatory Processes in Performance Evaluation.‘~Grguniz~tion~~ Behuvior & Human Recision Processes 44: 97-122. Brannick, M. T. and R. W. R. Darling. 1991. “Specifying Importance Weights Consistent with a Covariance Structure.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 395-410. Braun, H., M. Ragosta, and B. Kaplan. 1986. The predictive validity of the Scholastic Aptitude Test for disabled students. ETS Research report 86-38. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Brogden, H. E. 1949. “When Testing Pays Off.” Personnel Aychology 4: 171-185. Campion, M. A. 1988. “Interdisciplinary Approaches to Job Design: A Constructive Replication with Extensions.” Journal of Applied Psychology 73: 467-481. Campion, M. A. and P. W. Thayer. 1985. Development and Field Evaluation of an Interdisciplinary Measure of Job Design. Journal of Applied ~y~~~og~ 70: 2943. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 1992. A Technical Assistance Manual on the Employment Provisions (Title I) of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: Author. Fine, S. A. 1988. “Functional Job Analysis.” Pp. 1019-1035 in The Job Analysis Handbook for Business, Industry, and Government (Vol. 21, edited by S. Gael. New York: Wiley. Frierson, J. G. 1992. Employer’s Guide to the Amercians with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: Bureau of National AfFairs. Gael, S. (ed.11988. The Job Analysis Handbook for Business, Industry and Government. New York: Wiley. Hackman, J. R. and G. R. Oldham. 1975. “Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of ~p~ied ~y~ho~gy 60: 159-170. Hammond, K. R. and N. E. Wascoe. (eds.) 1980. Re~~~~t~~ of BrunswikQ Representative Design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Heaton, S. M., A. V. Nelson, and M. A. Nester. 1980. Guide forAdminLstering Examinations to Handicapped Individuals for Employment Purposes (PRR 80-16). Washington, DC: U. S. Office of Personnel Management. Hollenbeck, J. R., D. R. Ilgen, and S. M. Crampton. 1992. “Lower Back Disability in Occupational Settings: A Review of the Literature from a Human Resource Management View.” Personnel Psychology 45: 247-278. Jones, D. H. and M. Ragosta. 1982. Predictive validity of the SAT on two handicapped groups: The deaf and the learning disabled. ETS Research Report 82-9. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Keeney, R. L. and H. RaifTa. 1976. Decsions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Troop. New York: Wiley.
182
HUMAN
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
REVIEW
VOLUME
2. NUMBER
3,1992
Kochhar, D. S. and T. J. Armstrong. 1988. “Designing Jobs for Handicapped Employees.” Pp. 288-311 in The Job Analysis Handbook for Business, Industry, and Government (Vol. l), edited by S. Gael. New York: Wiley. Levine, E. L., J. N. Thomas, and F. Sistrunk. 1988. “Selecting a Job Analysis Approach. Pp. 339-352 in The Job Analysis Handbook for Business, Industry, and Government (Vol. l), edited by S. Gael. New York: Wiley. McCormick, E. J. 1979. Job Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: AMACOM. Mumpower, J. and L. Adelman. 1980. “The Application of Bnmswikian Methodology to Policy Formation.” In Realizations of Brunswiks Representative Design, edited by K. R. Hammond and N. E. Wascoe. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nester, M. A. 1984. “Employment Testing for Handicapped People.” Public Personnel
Management
13: 417-434.
Nester, M. A. and R. C. Sapinkopf. 1982. A Federal Employment Test Modified for Deaf Applicants (OPRD 82-7). Washington, DC: U. S. Office of Personnel Management. Primoff, E. S. and S. A. Fine. 1988. “A History of Job Analysis.” Pp. 14-29 in The Job Analysis Handbook for Business, Industry, and Government (Vol. 11, edited by S. Gael. New York: Wiley. Ragosta, M. and B. A. Kaplan. 1986. A survey of handicapped students taking special test administrations of the SAT and GRE. ETS Research Report 86-5. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Raju, N. S., M. J. Burke, and J. Normand. 1990. “A New Approach for Utility Analysis.”
Journal of Applied Psychology
75: 3-U.
Slavic, P. and S. Lichtenstein. 1971. “Comparison of Bayesian and Regression Approaches to the Study of Information Processing in Judgment.” Organizational
Behavior Solomon,
and Human Performance
6: 649-744.
C. M. 1992. “What the ADA Means to the Nondisabled.”
Personnel Journal:
70-79. Sparks,
C. P. 1988. “Legal
Basis for Job Analysis.”
Pp. 37-47 in The Job Analysis (Vol. 11,edited by S. Gael. New
Handbook for Business, Industry, and Government York: Wiley.
for Educational and Psychological Testing. 1985. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Taylor, H. C. and J. T. Russell. 1939. “The Relationship of Validity Coefficients to the Practical Effectiveness of Tests in Selection: Tables and Discussion.” Journal of
Standards
Applied
Psychology
23: 565-576.
Thompson, D. E. and T. A. Thompson. 1982. “Court Standards for Job Analysis Validation.” Personnel Psychology 35: 665-874.
in Test