Table:
job quality profiles

high overall quality jobs
good quality jobs, poor working-time quality
fair quality jobs, poor job resources and benefits
poor overall quality jobs

latent class 1
latent class 2
latent class 3
latent class 4

class membership

mean class membership probabilities
0.304
0.267
0.165
0.264

standard error
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003

item response probabilities

item 1: probabilities of having no/few good-job quality features

prospects
0.035
0.007
0.021
0.165

work intensity
0.033
0.030
0.000
0.045

working-time quality
0.000
0.156
0.031
0.140

skills and discretion
0.054
0.145
0.072
0.494

social environment
0.049
0.024
0.122
0.383

income and benefits
0.416
0.301
0.317
0.660

item 2: probabilities of having partial good-job quality features

prospects
0.361
0.427
0.396
0.699

work intensity
0.093
0.110
0.011
0.109

working-time quality
0.244
0.844
0.638
0.723

skills and discretion
0.252
0.299
0.475
0.322

social environment
0.277
0.248
0.594
0.473

income and benefits
0.071
0.087
0.683
0.227

item 3: probabilities of having many/all good-job quality features

prospects
0.604
0.565
0.583
0.136

work intensity
0.875
0.861
0.989
0.846

working-time quality
0.756
0.000
0.332
0.137

skills and discretion
0.694
0.555
0.453
0.185

social environment
0.673
0.728
0.284
0.144

income and benefits
0.513
0.612
0.000
0.112

Statement: finally, the remaining 17% did well in two dimensions (prospects and work intensity) but not as well in the other four dimensions, particularly social environment and benefits.
Question: what was the percentage of workers in class 3?
Answer: [0.165]