Priority Ratings of Air Force Enlisted Jobs
This citation is provided as a resource for researchers, but Contrails cannot provide a full-text download
U.S. government employees, Military/Department of Defense employees, and U.S. government contractors and sub-contractors may be eligible to register with the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), where this report and others like it may be available
Report Number: HRRC RB 51-13
Author(s): Thorndike, Robert L.
Corporate Author(s): Teachers College, Columbia University
Laboratory: Humam Resources Research Center
Date of Publication: 1951-07
Pages: 31
Contract: AF 33(038)-13474
DoD Project: 21-10-002
Identifier: ADF760086
Abstract:
In order to provide evidence on the priority level of different Air Force enlisted jobs, 84 representative AFSC's were ranked in subsets by 210 Air Force officers at Air Command and Staff School. Rankings were made on three separate bases: 'importance to the Air Force mission', 'training burden', and 'scarcity'. Through appropriate statistical procedures, the rankings of all 84 jobs were put on a single scale. This was done separately for each of the three dimensions ranked and for a composite of the three. There was a substantial core of agreement among officers as to the priority level of different jobs, and the pooled judgments of 50 judges gave a very stable and reliable estimate of the standing of a particular job. The three scales showed a high degree of overlapping, and did not seem to be appraising significantly different factors. Rated and non-rated officers, and those coming from command and non-command assignments showed only minor differences in the priorities which they assigned. The jobs given highest priority appeared to be mostly those involving care and maintenance of the airplane and its equipment. Many of the middle-priority jobs related to keeping personnel fed, housed, safe and healthy. Others had to do with auxiliary equipment less directly related to the plane. The jobs concerned with general administration, personnel handling and morale, and miscellaneous auxiliary services stood relatively low. The statistical analyses provide no evidence as to the basic validity of these priority indices. Insofar as one is willing to accept them, however, they have several implications for personnel operations and research.
Provenance: IIT
Author(s): Thorndike, Robert L.
Corporate Author(s): Teachers College, Columbia University
Laboratory: Humam Resources Research Center
Date of Publication: 1951-07
Pages: 31
Contract: AF 33(038)-13474
DoD Project: 21-10-002
Identifier: ADF760086
Abstract:
In order to provide evidence on the priority level of different Air Force enlisted jobs, 84 representative AFSC's were ranked in subsets by 210 Air Force officers at Air Command and Staff School. Rankings were made on three separate bases: 'importance to the Air Force mission', 'training burden', and 'scarcity'. Through appropriate statistical procedures, the rankings of all 84 jobs were put on a single scale. This was done separately for each of the three dimensions ranked and for a composite of the three. There was a substantial core of agreement among officers as to the priority level of different jobs, and the pooled judgments of 50 judges gave a very stable and reliable estimate of the standing of a particular job. The three scales showed a high degree of overlapping, and did not seem to be appraising significantly different factors. Rated and non-rated officers, and those coming from command and non-command assignments showed only minor differences in the priorities which they assigned. The jobs given highest priority appeared to be mostly those involving care and maintenance of the airplane and its equipment. Many of the middle-priority jobs related to keeping personnel fed, housed, safe and healthy. Others had to do with auxiliary equipment less directly related to the plane. The jobs concerned with general administration, personnel handling and morale, and miscellaneous auxiliary services stood relatively low. The statistical analyses provide no evidence as to the basic validity of these priority indices. Insofar as one is willing to accept them, however, they have several implications for personnel operations and research.
Provenance: IIT