U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

Research Report 1926 

Prototype Procedures to Describe Army Jobs 

 

Michael Ingerick, Joy Oliver, 

Matthew Allen, and Deirdre Knapp 

Human Resources Research Organization 

Richard Hoffman, Peter Greenston, 

and Kimberly Owens 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

July 2010 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

Department of the Army 

Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 

Authorized and approved for distribution: 

 MICHELLE SAMS, Ph.D. 

 Director 

Research accomplished under contract 

for the Department of the Army 

Human Resources Research Organization 

Technical Review by 

Sharon Ardison, U.S. Army Research Institute 

Brian Tate, U.S. Army Research Institute 

NOTICES 

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Research Report has been made by ARI. 

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army 

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: DAPE-ARI-ZXM, 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926. 

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Research Report may be destroyed when it is no longer 

needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 

and Social Sciences. 

NOTE: The findings in this Research Report are not to be construed as an official 

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents. 
i 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy)

July 2010 

2. REPORT TYPE

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to) 

June 1, 2007 – December 31, 2009 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Prototype Procedures to Describe Army Jobs 

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER 

 DASW01-03-D-0015, DO #0037 

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

 622785

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Michael Ingerick, Joy Oliver, Matthew Allen, & Deirdre Knapp 

(Human Resources Research Organization); Richard 

Hoffman, Peter Greenston, & Kimberly Owens (U.S. Army 

5c. PROJECT NUMBER 

 A790

5d. TASK NUMBER 

 283

Research Institute 5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

Human Resources Research Organization 

66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 700 

Alexandria, Virginia 22314

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 

FR-09-87 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway

Arlington, VA 22202-3926

10. MONITOR ACRONYM 

ARI 

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER 

Research Report 1926 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

 Contracting Officer’s Representative: Peter Greenston

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): 

 Descriptions of Army jobs or Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) provide the foundation for Army personnel 

management, from entry-level selection and classification to training and performance management. However, existing 

job analysis approaches used in the Army have a number of limitations. This project represents the first step in a longterm research roadmap intended to address this issue (Campbell et al., 2007). The purpose of this project was to develop 

and field test a new prototype job analysis approach, customized to the Army, for describing entry-level enlisted jobs. 

Questionnaires measuring work and worker-oriented domains were developed and administered online to incumbents and 

supervisors in six MOS (N = 1,390): (a) Infantryman (11B), (b) Armor Crewman (19K), (c) Signal Support Specialist 

(25U), (d) Light-Wheel Vehicle Mechanic (63B), (e) Military Police (31B), and (f) Motor Transport Operator (88M). The 

results of the field test demonstrated that the questionnaires evidenced sufficient reliability and validity for describing 

enlisted jobs and feature a method that could be easily expanded Army-wide and at a reasonable cost. The report 

concludes with a summary of lessons learned from the field test and discussion of ways in which future research can 

enhance and extend the prototype approach. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

Work Analysis Job Analysis Job Clustering Personnel Selection and Classification 

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. LIMITATION OF 

ABSTRACT 

Unlimited 

20. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

183 

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Ellen Kinzer 

Technical Publications Specialist 

(703) 602-8049 

16. REPORT 

Unclassified 

17. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

18. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 

 

Standard Form 298
 

ii 
iii 

Research Report 1926 

Prototype Procedures to Describe Army Jobs 

 

Michael Ingerick, Joy;Oliver, 

Matthew Allen, and Deirdre Knapp 

Human Resources Research Organization 

Richard Hoffman, Peter Greenston, 

and Kimberly Owens 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

 

ARI – Personnel Assessment Research Unit 

Michael G. Rumsey, Chief 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926 

July 2010 

Army Project Number ARI Management 

665801.MM15 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Acknowledgements 

There are a number individuals not listed as authors who have contributed significantly to 

the research described in this report. Dr. Patrick Mackin, Ms. Kimberly Darling, and Mr. Doug 

Christman (SAG Corporation) designed, developed, and programmed the database to support the 

prototype approach field tested in this research. Ms. Sharon Meyers (ARI) prepared the job 

analysis questionnaires for web-based administration. The members of the Army Classification 

Research Panel (ACRP) contributed their advice and guidance in the early stages of this research 

– Drs. John Campbell (HumRRO/University of Minnesota), Rodney McCloy (HumRRO), S. 

Morton McPhail (Valtera), Kenneth Pearlman (Independent Consultant), Norman Peterson (SPR 

Center), and James Rounds (University of Illinois). The many members of HumRRO who 

contributed to and assisted in the development of the content for the prototype approach – Mr. 

Roy Campbell, Mr. Joseph Caramagno, Dr. Jesse Erdheim, Dr. Laura Ford, Dr. Amy Hooper, 

Dr. Teresa Russell, Dr. Andrea Sinclair, and Dr. Matthew Trippe. Last but not least, our sincerest 

thanks to the U.S. Army Soldiers who generously gave of their time and knowledge throughout 

all stages of this project and whose contributions made this research possible. 

iv 
PROTOTYPE PROCEDURES TO DESCRIBE ARMY JOBS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Research Requirement: 

Descriptions of Army jobs or Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) provide the 

foundation for Army personnel management, from entry-level selection and classification to 

training and performance management. However, existing job analysis approaches used in the 

Army have a number of limitations. Consequently, existing job analysis approaches make 

conducting Army research to enhance personnel management both challenging and costly. The 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) convened a sixmember Army Classification Research Panel (ACRP) in 2007 to recommend solutions to this 

issue. The ACRP formulated a series of recommendations grounded in occupational or job 

analysis and proposed a long-term research roadmap for examining these recommendations 

(Campbell et al., 2007). This project represents the first step in that roadmap. The purpose of this 

project was to develop and field test a new prototype job analysis approach, customized to the 

Army, for use in describing entry-level enlisted jobs. 

Procedure: 

 Job analysis questionnaires were developed to measure work (work activities and work 

context) and worker-oriented domains (work abilities, interests, values, and styles) useful for 

describing similarities and differences in entry-level MOS. Participants in the field test were 

junior enlisted Soldiers (E2-E4s) and noncommissioned officers (NCOs; E5-E7s) in six MOS: 

(a) Infantryman (11B), (b) Armor Crewman (19K), (c) Signal Support Specialist (25U), (d) 

Light-Wheel Vehicle Mechanic (63B), (e) Military Police (31B), and (f) Motor Transport 

Operator (88M). 

 The job analysis questionnaires were administered online using the InterForm software 

from ARI’s Occupational Analysis (OA) program. To restrict the administration time per 

participant to 20-25 minutes (or less), the questionnaires were administered using a matrix 

sampling approach (i.e., not all participants completed all questionnaires). A total of four blocks 

of questionnaires were administered to participants. 

 Completed questionnaires were received from a total of 1,390 Soldiers (1,111 supervisors 

and 277 incumbents). The response rates varied by MOS and block, but were generally less than 

10%. 

Findings: 

Overall, the results of the field test were encouraging, as evidenced by the following: 

The multi-rater reliability estimates were consistently .80 or greater, with many .90 and 

above, indicating that the mean ratings evidence sufficient reliability to support their use in 

operational decision-making (e.g., clustering MOS). These estimates were generally comparable 

v 
to or exceeded those obtained on corresponding questionnaires administered to Army 

supervisors during an evaluation of the use of the existing O*NET system to describe Army jobs. 

In particular, the estimates for worker abilities obtained using the prototype approach were 

consistently higher than those observed using the O*NET work abilities questionnaire (a mean 

multi-rater ICC of .95 using the prototype approach versus .75 for the O*NET). 

Overall, there was greater within group variability than between group variability, 

indicating that most of the systematic variance in ratings resulted from yet-to-be examined 

factors (e.g., duty position), rather than rater type. Differences between incumbent and 

supervisor ratings, on average, were generally low. The absolute standardized mean differences 

in ratings between the two rater types were, on average, about one-third of a standard deviation 

or smaller (mean |d| < .33), compared to the standard deviations within any rater type, which 

were typically .70 or greater. Further, there was no evidence that the differences followed a 

systematic pattern (i.e., one group consistently rated the descriptors within a given domain higher 

or lower than the other group). Similarly, the correlations in the ratings profile between the two 

rater types were generally high, on average (mean r of .53 or greater), with correlations in the 

.80s for work activities, evidence that incumbents and supervisors were generally consistent in 

the relative importance they assigned the job descriptors within any given domain. 

Ratings from the questionnaires demonstrated promise for differentiating among MOS, 

although the differences were small in several instances. With the exception of work styles and 

values, the mean correlations in rating profiles across MOS for any single domain were 

consistently lower, on average, than the correlations between rater types within an MOS (with 

differences in mean r ranging from .09 to .22). A similar pattern of results, however, was not 

evident when examining the average absolute standardized mean differences, where the mean 

differences between MOS were generally comparable to or lower than those reflecting 

differences between rater types within an MOS (the differences in mean |d| ranged from .02 to 

.22). Among the worker-oriented questionnaires, the ones demonstrating the greatest potential, 

on average, for differentiating across MOS were worker abilities and interests, at least for this 

particular sample of MOS (Abilities: mean r = .55, mean |d| = .32; Interests: mean r = .67; mean 

|d| = .34). 

Participants’ reactions to the questionnaires and their content were generally positive, 

both in terms of their ease of use and their relevance for describing their MOS. About 62% or 

greater of the participants, on average, found the questionnaires easy to use and the instructions 

and content clear, with upwards of 87% of participants reacting that way to the work activities 

questionnaires. Similarly, 62% or more of the participants, on average, rated the questionnaires 

as useful and relevant to describing their MOS, with upwards of 88% of participants rating the 

work activities questionnaires in that manner. Overall, participants reacted more favorably to the 

work-oriented questionnaires, in particular the work activities questionnaire, than the workeroriented questionnaires. This finding is not surprising, given that the work-oriented 

questionnaires, specifically those measuring work activities, contained the most job-specific 

content. 

 Although the results of the field test were generally promising, this research was not 

without its limitations. Specifically: 

vi 
The response rates to the questionnaires were generally low, particularly for incumbents. 

Among incumbents, response rates were typically 5% or less. The response rates among 

supervisors tended to be two to three times that rate (10% to 15%), with a high close to 31%. 

There were also notable differences in response rates by MOS, with 25U generally evidencing 

the highest response rates and 11B and 19K demonstrating the lowest response rates. Although 

low, these response rates were consistent with those typically encountered by the Army’s 

Occupational Analysis Program (OAP). 

The ratings collected did not permit an examination of the similarities and differences in 

work activities by MOS. Although ratings were collected on work activities during the field test, 

these data were on the lower-order (or more job-specific) activities. As a result, no data were 

available to evaluate the psychometric properties and discriminant validity associated with a 

questionnaire measuring higher-order (or cross job) descriptors. However, some evidence for the 

potential value of such a measure, albeit indirect, was evident in the results for the work interests 

questionnaire. The work interests questionnaire measured the importance of interests in 

performing various higher-order work activities required for the job. The content of the 

questionnaire was based on a slightly modified version of the O*NET’s Generalized Work 

Activities (GWA) taxonomy. In general, the work interests measure evidenced higher multi-rater 

reliability estimates, greater discriminant validity, and more favorable participant reactions than 

the other worker-oriented questionnaires. 

Although the evidence for discriminant validity was promising, the differences in ratings 

by MOS from any single domain were generally small. For example, the average absolute 

standardized mean differences by MOS ranged from .18 (Work Context and Work Values) to .34 

(Work Interests). There are several potential explanations for this finding: (a) the nature of the 

MOS sampled; (b) the use of importance ratings, as opposed to level ratings or some alternative 

kind of rating exercise with greater potential to differentiate across MOS; (c) the questionnaires 

contained a number of items not useful for differentiating across MOS, or at least this particular 

sample of MOS; and (d) the use of web-based surveys to collect ratings, as opposed to some 

alternative data collection method (e.g., a workshop). 

Utilization and Dissemination of Findings: 

Based on the results of the field test, the next recommended step is to expand it to a larger 

sample of MOS, as outlined in the ACRP’s research roadmap (Campbell et al., 2007). In the 

near-term, collecting ratings on a larger sample of MOS would potentially serve two purposes: 

(a) to develop MOS clusters that could be used to select MOS to target in future criterion-related 

validation research (e.g., to examine the classification potential of new predictor measures); and 

(b) to develop or to identify end-of-training criteria that sufficiently support the Army’s 

personnel classification research, but require fewer resources to construct and to field (e.g., 

occupational judgment tests). In the long term, collecting these ratings would enable the Army to 

test procedures for generalizing or transporting criterion-related validation evidence obtained for 

a smaller, focal sample of MOS to a larger sample (e.g., to facilitate the development or updating 

of prediction equations to be used in classifying new Soldiers). 

For the purposes of meeting the near-term objective of clustering MOS, this expanded 

sample of MOS would need to be larger than the number of focal MOS to be sampled in the 

vii 
planned criterion-related validation research. This sample would preferably comprise 20-30 jobs. 

Accordingly, job analysis data would need to be collected from an additional 45-55 MOS to 

ensure a sufficiently representative number to meet this goal. Assuming that only cross-job 

descriptors were used so none of the questionnaires would be MOS-specific, this could be a 

feasible next step. 

viii 
PROTOTYPE PROCEDURES TO DESCRIBE ARMY JOBS 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT OBJECTIVES ....................................................................1

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Project Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 2

Overview of Report ......................................................................................................................... 3

II. REASONS FOR AND ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF AN ARMY-SPECIFIC JOB 

 ANALYSIS APPROACH .....................................................................................3

Why an Alternative Army-Specific Approach? .............................................................................. 3

What Kind of an Approach Does the Army Need? ........................................................................ 3

III. DEVELOPMENT OF PROTOTYPE ARMY JOB ANALYSIS APPROACH........................5

Selection of Job Descriptor Taxonomies ........................................................................................ 5

Guiding Design Principles for Developing Prototype Army Job Descriptors ................................ 5

Development of the Prototype Descriptors ................................................................................... 12

Selection of Rating Scales ............................................................................................................ 14

Development and Pilot Testing of the Questionnaires ................................................................. 15

Development of the Supporting Relational Database ................................................................... 15

IV. FIELD TEST OF THE PROTOTYPE ARMY JOB ANALYSIS APPROACH ....................17

Method .......................................................................................................................................... 17

Sample................................................................................................................................17

Description of Questionnaires............................................................................................17

Procedure for Administering the Questionnaires ...............................................................18

Questionnaire Instructions .................................................................................................19

Response Rates and Completion Times .............................................................................19

Analysis Sample Demographics ................................................................................................... 27

Results ........................................................................................................................................... 28

Basic Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................28

Were the Jobs Rated Reliably Using the Field Test Questionnaires? ................................33

Did Incumbents and Supervisors Agree in their Ratings? .................................................39

Did Ratings from the Questionnaires Differentiate among MOS? ....................................46

Did Participants React Favorably to the Questionnaires? ..................................................50

V. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................................54

Major Findings and Limitations from the Field Test .................................................................... 54

Looking at the Army’s Model for Generating Job Analysis Data: Beyond the Descriptors ........ 56

Barriers to Collecting Army Job Analysis Information .....................................................56

Strategies to Minimize Burden on Army Personnel for Developing Job Descriptors .......57

Strategies to Increase Effectiveness of Data Collection Approach ...................................58

Ensuring Training Requirements are Addressed ...............................................................59

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH ................................................60

ix 
x 

CONTENTS (continued) 

Refine the Descriptors and Rating Scales ..................................................................................... 60

Cross-Job Descriptors ........................................................................................................60

Work Activities ..................................................................................................................61

Ratings ...............................................................................................................................61

Investigate Alternative Data Collection Strategies ....................................................................... 62

Collect Data on a Larger Sample of MOS and Use to Cluster MOS ............................................ 62

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 65 

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................67 

LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE 1. THE POTENTIAL UNIVERSE OF WORK AND WORKER-ORIENTED 

DESCRIPTORS USEFUL FOR SERVING THE ARMY’S ENLISTED 

CLASSIFICATION AND SELECTION NEEDS ..........................................................6 

TABLE 2. PURPOSES FOR CLUSTERING MOS AND THEIR RELEVANT DESCRIPTOR 

DOMAINS ......................................................................................................................9 

TABLE 3. GUIDING DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR DEVELOPING ARMY JOB 

DESCRIPTORS ............................................................................................................11 

TABLE 4. DESCRIPTOR DOMAINS DEVELOPED FOR PROTOTYPE 

QUESTIONNAIRES BY CATEGORY AND LEVEL OF DESCRIPTION...............13 

TABLE 5. PRIMARY SOURCE(S) FOR THE DESCRIPTOR DOMAINS DEVELOPED 

FOR PROTOTYPE QUESTIONNAIRES ...................................................................14 

TABLE 6. QUESTIONNAIRES ADMINISTERED IN FIELD TEST BY BLOCK ...................18 

TABLE 7. RESPONSE RATES FOR WORK ACTIVITY QUESTIONNAIRE BLOCKS 

BY MOS AND RATER TYPE ..................................................................................21 

TABLE 8. RESPONSE RATES FOR WORK CONTEXT QUESTIONNAIRE BLOCKS 

BY MOS AND RATER TYPE ..................................................................................22 

TABLE 9. COMPLETED WORK-ORIENTED QUESTIONNAIRES (WORK ACTIVITIES 

AND WORK CONTEXT) .........................................................................................23 

TABLE 10. COMPLETED WORKER-ORIENTED QUESTIONNAIRES (ABILITIES, 

WORK STYLES, WORK INTERESTS, WORK VALUES) .................................24
CONTENTS (continued) 

TABLE 11. COMPLETION TIMES BY QUESTIONNAIRE BLOCK, MOS, AND RATER 

TYPE ..........................................................................................................................25 

TABLE 12. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF FIELD TEST SAMPLE .....................27 

TABLE 13. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR RATINGS OF WORK ACTIVITIES BY 

MOS AND RATER TYPE .........................................................................................29 

TABLE 14. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR WORK ACTIVITIES CATEGORY 

RATINGS BY MOS AND RATER TYPE ................................................................30 

TABLE 15. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR WORK CONTEXT RATINGS .........................31 

TABLE 16. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR WORK ABILITY AND WORK STYLE 

IMPORTANCE RATINGS ........................................................................................32 

TABLE 17. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR WORK VALUES AND WORK INTERESTS 

IMPORTANCE RATINGS ........................................................................................33 

TABLE 18. ICCS OF WORK ACTIVITIES RATINGS BY MOS AND RATER TYPE .............34 

TABLE 19. ICCS OF WORK ACTIVITIES CATEGORY RATINGS BY MOS AND 

RATER TYPE ............................................................................................................35 

TABLE 20. ICCS OF WORK CONTEXT RATINGS BY MOS AND RATER TYPE .................36 

TABLE 21. ICCS OF WORK ABILITIES AND STYLES RATINGS BY MOS AND 

RATER TYPE ............................................................................................................37 

TABLE 22. ICCS OF WORK VALUES AND INTERESTS RATINGS BY MOS AND 

RATER TYPE ............................................................................................................38 

TABLE 23. PROFILE SIMILARITY AND MEAN DIFFERENCES IN ACTIVITIES 

RATINGS BETWEEN INCUMBENTS AND SUPERVISORS ...............................40 

TABLE 24. PROFILE SIMILARITY AND MEAN DIFFERENCES IN ACTIVITIES 

CATEGORIES RATINGS BETWEEN INCUMBENTS AND SUPERVISORS .....42 

TABLE 25. PROFILE SIMILARITY AND MEAN DIFFERENCES IN WORK CONTEXT 

RATINGS BETWEEN INCUMBENTS AND SUPERVISORS ...............................43

xi 
xii 

CONTENTS (continued) 

TABLE 26. PROFILE SIMILARITY AND MEAN DIFFERENCES IN WORK ABILITIES, 

STYLES, VALUES AND INTERESTS RATINGS BETWEEN INCUMBENTS 

AND SUPERVISORS ................................................................................................44 

TABLE 27. PROFILE SIMILARITY AND MEAN DIFFERENCES IN WORK CONTEXT 

RATINGS AMONG MOS .........................................................................................47 

TABLE 28. AVERAGE PROFILE SIMILARITY AND MEAN DIFFERENCE 

STATISTICS FOR THE WORK-ORIENTED DESCRIPTORS ..............................48 

TABLE 29. PROFILE SIMILARITY AND MEAN DIFFERENCES IN WORKERRELATED CHARACTERISTICS RATINGS AMONG MOS BY DOMAIN .........49 

TABLE 30. AVERAGE PROFILE SIMILARITY AND MEAN DIFFERENCE 

STATISTICS FOR THE WORKER-ORIENTED DESCRIPTORS .........................49 

TABLE 31. RESPONDENT REACTIONS TO WORK-ORIENTED QUESTIONNAIRES ........51 

TABLE 32. RESPONDENT REACTIONS TO WORKER-ORIENTED QUESTIONNAIRES – 

ABILITIES, STYLES, VALUES, AND INTERESTS ..............................................52 

TABLE 33. EXAMPLES OF WORK ACTIVITY DESCRIPTORS THAT INCORPORATE 

KNOWLEDGE AND TOOLS-BASED DESCRIPTORS .........................................61 

LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE 1. PROPOSED NEAR-TERM AGENDA AND ACRP PROPOSED ROADMAP ....... 2 

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR FORMULATING 

ARMY JOB DESCRIPTORS AND METRICS ............................................ A-1

APPENDIX B: DESCRIPTION AND LAYOUT OF THE RELATIONAL DATABASE ......B-1

APPENDIX C: WORK ACTIVITIES QUESTIONNAIRES ....................................................C-1

 11B INFANTRYMAN ................................................................................................... C-2 

 19K M1 ABRAMS TANK ARMOR CREWMAN...................................................... C-11

 25U SIGNAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS SPECIALIST ................................................... C-17

 31B MILITARY POLICE ............................................................................................ C-23

 63B WHEELED VEHICLE MECHANIC ................................................................... C-29

 88M MOTOR TRANSPORT OPERATOR ................................................................. C-33
CONTENTS (continued) 

APPENDIX D: WORK CONTEXT QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................................... D-1

APPENDIX E: WORKER-ORIENTED QUESTIONNAIRES ................................................. E-1

 ARMY ABILITIES QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................ E-2

 ARMY WORK STYLES QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................... E-8

 ARMY WORK INTERESTS QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................................... E-12

 ARMY WORK VALUES QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................ E-16

APPENDIX F: CROSS-JOB WORK ACTIVITY DESCRIPTORS AND DEFINITION ........ F-1 

xiii 
xiv 
PROTOTYPE PROCEDURES TO DESCRIBE ARMY JOBS

I. Introduction and Project Objectives 

Background 

Describing Army jobs or Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) provides the 

foundation for Army personnel management, from entry-level selection and classification to 

training and performance management. However, existing operational approaches to analyze and 

describe Army MOS have several limitations. 

• They vary within and across MOS. These differences are evident in the descriptors 

used, as well as the process used to describe them. As a result, every MOS “seems” 

different. Sometimes the same MOS “seems” different. 

• They sometimes capture information that is too detailed or too specific to be useful 

for a given personnel management application. Other times these approaches capture 

information that is not descriptive enough. Further, the level of detail varies 

considerably both across and within MOS. 

• They sometimes miss important information about the requirements of the MOS (e.g., 

non-technical work activities, worker-oriented characteristics). 

Consequently, existing job analysis approaches make conducting Army research to 

enhance personnel management both challenging and costly. The U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) convened a six-member Army Classification 

Research Panel (ACRP) in 2007 to recommend solutions to these limitations; limitations that 

have and continue to carry significant implications for conducting enlisted classification research 

(e.g., collecting criterion data on a sufficiently representative sample of MOS).1

The ACRP considered a number and diverse range of strategies and solutions to these 

limitations, ranging from occupational or job analysis to criterion measurement development to 

analytic methods for generalizing or transporting predictive validity evidence.2

 They concluded 

that a viable, long-term solution to these limitations required a comprehensive, evidence-based 

approach that addressed all these areas. The ACRP’s deliberations resulted in a series of 

recommendations and a long-term roadmap of research activities designed to examine and 

inform one or more of these recommendations (see Figure 1). The first step in that roadmap was 

to develop and field test a standardized approach for describing entry-level jobs. This job 

analysis approach (or system) would possess certain features (e.g., cross-job descriptors 

customized to the Army context, work activity descriptors at multiple levels of description) and 

could be implemented Army-wide. The ACRP concluded that having such an approach would 

provide the necessary foundation for future research efforts to advance the Army’s classification 

system from clustering MOS to developing new end-of-training criteria to generalizing or 

transporting predictive validity estimates across MOS. 

 

1

 The results of the ACRP’s deliberations and their recommendations can be found in Campbell, McCloy, McPhail, 

Pearlman, Peterson, Rounds, and Ingerick (2007). 2

 Throughout this report, “occupational analysis,” “work analysis,” and “job analysis” are used interchangeably. 

1 
2 

Construct and Populate Relational Personnel Research Database 

Pilot Job Analysis 

Approach 

Collect Job Info 

for Sample of 

MOS 

Cluster 

MOS 

(Preliminary) 

Develop End-ofTraining Criteria 

Pilot Generalizing/ 

Transporting 

Validity 

Approach(es) 

Conduct 

Validation 

Studies 

Figure 1. Proposed near-term agenda and ACRP proposed roadmap 

Accordingly, ARI has undertaken two projects to investigate and evaluate valid 

approaches for describing MOS. The first of these projects, Evaluating the O*NET Occupational 

Analysis System for Army Competency Development, examined the utility of the existing 

Occupational Information Network (O*NET) for describing entry-level enlisted and officer jobs 

(Russell et al., 2008). The second of these projects, which is the focus of this report, involved 

developing, piloting, and field testing a prototype job analysis approach for use in describing 

entry-level enlisted MOS, using standardized descriptor taxonomies and questionnaires 

customized to the Army. 

Project Objectives 

The primary purpose of this project was to develop and field test a prototype job analysis 

approach for describing Army jobs. Consistent with the roadmap proposed by the ACRP, the 

specific objectives of this effort were twofold: 

• To design, develop, and field test a prototype job analysis approach that (a) 

sufficiently describes similarities and differences in Army MOS, and (b) can be 

implemented Army-wide and at a reasonable cost. 

• To develop and start to populate a supporting relational database that would 

systematically collect and store job analysis data and other results (e.g., criterionrelated validity estimates), where feasible. The database will provide useful 

information toward meeting the Army’s personnel management objectives. The initial 

application would be to support new Soldier selection and classification. 

 
Overview of Report 

This report is organized as follows. First, we discuss the reasons for and the essential 

features of the proposed job analysis approach. Second, we describe development of the 

proposed approach and the questionnaires. Third, we summarize administration of the 

questionnaires in the field test. Fourth, we discuss the results and findings of the field test. The 

report concludes with a summary of the major findings of the field test and recommendations for 

next steps. 

II. Reasons for and Essential Features of an 

Army-Specific Job Analysis Approach 

Why an Alternative Army-Specific Approach? 

 Having job analysis data represents an essential first step in meeting the Army’s needs for 

research on Soldier classification and other personnel issues. The ACRP observed that job 

analysis approaches currently in use operationally in the Army, while useful for their intended 

purposes (e.g., designing MOS-specific training programs), do not provide the information 

needed for classification and personnel research for the reasons previously cited (e.g., lack of 

standardization across MOS, incomplete or missing information on important job requirements). 

The ACRP considered but concluded that other existing job analysis systems, such as the 

O*NET, could provide the basis for an Army job analysis system and that there were advantages 

to linking Army content to existing systems. However, these existing systems were not likely to 

fully meet the Army’s needs in their current form since they were developed to describe civilian, 

not military, jobs. In sum, the ACRP determined that existing systems available to the Army for 

describing entry-level MOS: 

• Miss important requirements useful for describing Army jobs (e.g., combat-related 

work activities or work context characteristics unique to the Army or a military 

setting); 

• Include descriptors that are not relevant for describing Army jobs or use terminology 

(or examples) that does not accurately capture entry-level Army job requirements; 

and 

• Fail to capture job information at multiple levels of description, so as to serve the 

Army’s need for information for multiple purposes (e.g., entry-level selection and 

classification, training, performance measurement). 

What Kind of an Approach Does the Army Need? 

For these reasons, the ACRP concluded that the Army should develop a new job analysis 

system that functions effectively within the context of the Army. The ACRP recommended that 

the system include the following features: 

• A common language, customized to the Army context, for describing similarities and 

differences in MOS. This common language should consist of a reasonably 

comprehensive set of descriptors representing targeted work (i.e., work activities, work or 

job context, machine-tools-equipment-technology) and worker-oriented (i.e., knowledge, 

3 
skills, abilities, work values, interests) domains. These descriptors must be sufficient for 

describing any MOS. 

• Cross-MOS descriptors for use in identifying similarities and differences across MOS. 

• Descriptors, in particular work activities (i.e., what Soldiers do on a job), at multiple 

levels of generality that can be organized hierarchically to support the Army’s needs for 

job information at multiple levels of aggregation. 

• The flexibility to combine descriptors or data on descriptors from multiple, traditionally 

independent domains, and in new or innovative ways that enable the identification of 

similarities and differences in Army jobs. 

• A reasonable cost to implement the system. 

• Sufficient flexibility so that the descriptors can be refined and updated, as needed. The 

system needs to include a mechanism for adding new descriptors, or modifying existing 

descriptors, as job information on a larger sample of MOS is collected or MOS 

requirements change over time. 

• A foundation based on descriptor taxonomies, developed or refined using a combined 

top-down and bottom-up approach, as recommended by the ACRP. 

• A relational database that collects, organizes, and stores job analysis data systematically 

over time and that facilitates the integration of these data with other relevant personnel 

data (e.g., criterion-related validity estimates). 

In the near-term, having a job analysis system with the above features will enable the Army to: 

• Cluster MOS to guide the sampling of MOS for criterion-related validation studies; 

• Demonstrate the relevance of, or refine, existing criteria for use in criterion-related 

validation studies; 

• Develop new, alternative criteria that target critical MOS-specific and cross-MOS 

dimensions useful for differentiating MOS; 

• Cluster MOS to produce experimental job families that maximize the (observed) 

classification gains of targeted predictors (e.g., non-cognitive predictors); 

• Cluster MOS to estimate and determine the limits of generalizing (or transporting) 

criterion-related validity estimates, or prediction equations, across MOS; and 

• Generalize, or transport, criterion-related validity estimates or performance prediction 

equations for a sample of MOS to other MOS sharing the same requirements for purposes 

of selecting predictor batteries that maximize classification gains. 

Over time, having a job analysis system with the above features will enable the Army to: 

• Cluster MOS to produce new, alternative job families for operational use under the 

Army’s current enlisted classification system that maximize the classification gains of 

targeted predictors; 

• Cluster MOS to investigate potential enhancements to the operational classification 

system (e.g., a two-stage procedure, whereby recruits are first assigned to broad clusters 

of MOS on the basis of their interests, then to a specific MOS within a cluster based on 

their abilities); and 

4 
• Document changes in MOS over time and their implications for the operational use, or 

continued use, of previously collected criterion-related validity estimates (or prediction 

equations) for classifying new recruits to MOS. 

III. Development of Prototype Army Job Analysis Approach 

Selection of Job Descriptor Taxonomies 

 Central to the proposed job analysis system are job descriptors for use in characterizing 

the similarities and differences in Army MOS. Table 1 summarizes the potential universe of job 

descriptor categories and domains useful for serving the Army’s enlisted selection and 

classification needs, based on the O*NET’s Content Model (Peterson, Mumford, Borman, 

Jeanneret, & Fleishman, 1999) with representative examples specific to the Army. 

 Because of the resources available, it was not feasible in this prototype project to 

formulate and collect data on descriptors encompassing all of the categories and domains 

referenced in Table 1. As a result, some prioritization was needed. Many of the research 

activities comprising the ACRP’s roadmap involve, or require, clustering MOS on the basis of 

one or more targeted descriptor domains. Table 2, taken from the ACRP report (2007; see pp. 

10-12), matches the descriptor domain(s) most useful to advancing each of these activities, 

ordered in descending order of priority. As evident from the table, work activities, at any level of 

description, emerge as important to accomplishing several of these activities, followed by one or 

more worker-oriented characteristics (i.e., occupation-specific knowledges and skills, work 

interests or values, abilities). Accordingly, the following job descriptor domains were identified 

by the ACRP as most critical for development (in descending order of priority): 

• Work activities (to be defined at a minimum of two levels of specificity) 

• Work (or organizational) context and related personal characteristics (i.e., interests, 

values, and temperament [or work styles]) 

• Occupation-specific knowledges and skills, to include weapons-equipment-toolstechnology 

• Worker aptitudes and abilities 

Guiding Design Principles for Developing Prototype Army Job Descriptors 

 There were a number of issues to be addressed in the development of the prototype Army 

job descriptors. The implications of these issues should not be understated given the objectives 

of this initial effort. These issues included: 

• Which job descriptor domains should be included? For each domain targeted, at what 

and how many levels of generality should the descriptors be specified? At what level 

of detail should the descriptors be specified? 

• Should descriptors reflecting requirements common to all MOS (e.g., common, 

Army-wide tasks) be included? 

• Should descriptors include MOS-specific content unique to an MOS (e.g., MOSspecific tasks, tools and technology, education and training requirements)? 

5 
Table 1. The Potential Universe of Work and Worker-Oriented Descriptors Useful for Serving 

the Army’s Enlisted Classification and Selection Needs 

Category/ 

Domain Subdomain Definition 

Representative Examples 

(Specific to Army) 

Work-Oriented 

Work Activities Occupation/job-specific 

technical 

The major duties and key 

work activities that 

constitute the core 

technical requirements of 

a job and that differentiate 

one Army job, or cluster 

of jobs, from another. 

• Maintains a motor vehicle 

• Transports cargo and 

personnel 

• Loads/unloads passengers 

for transport in truck 

• Performs tie-down 

procedures 

Non-occupation/jobspecific technical The major duties and key 

work activities 

constituting the core 

technical requirements 

that are not unique to a job 

but are required by most 

or all jobs in the Army. 

• Process casualties 

• Administer first aid 

• Install and recover mines 

• Evade and survive capture 

Non-technical The major duties and key 

work activities that are 

non-technical, and 

typically intra- and interpersonal, in nature. 

• Demonstrates physical 

fitness 

• Demonstrates teamwork 

• Exhibits effort and initiative 

on the job 

• Exhibits integrity and 

discipline on the job 

• Relates to and supports 

peers 

• Solves problems and makes 

decisions 

Work Context Job context Characteristics of the 

immediate job 

environment (e.g., 

physical, motivational, 

and social) that influence 

the nature of work 

performed. 

• Communication methods 

• Job hazards 

• Physical setting and 

proximity 

• Situational constraints (e.g., 

time pressure) 

Organizational or unit 

context 

Characteristics of the 

organization, or unit 

within the organization, 

that influence the work 

performed. 

• Culture/climate 

• (De)centralization of 

decision-making 

• Team-based structure 

WeaponsEquipment-ToolsTechnology 

Weapon(s), tool(s), 

equipment, and/or 

technology needed to 

perform the technical and 

non-technical 

requirements of a job, or 

cluster of jobs. 

• M16A2 rifle 

• .50 caliber machine gun 

• Hoist 

• Wrench 

• Air compressor 

6 
Table 1. (continued) 

Category/ 

Domain Subdomain Definition 

Representative Examples 

(Specific to Army) 

Work-Oriented (continued) 

Occupational and 

Workforce 

Characteristics 

Minimum entry 

requirements and training 

difficulty 

Information on the 

minimum entry 

requirements of job and 

difficulty of its technical 

training. 

• Minimum entry requirements 

(e.g., Aptitude Area (AA) cut 

scores) 

• Passing scores for advanced 

technical training 

• Completion/graduation rates 

from advanced training 

Mission importance Information on the job’s 

importance and priority to 

the Army. 

• Job quotas (or accession 

targets) 

• Deployment/OPTEMPO rates 

Job family/cluster 

membership 

Information on the job’s 

existing family or cluster 

membership. 

• Aptitude Area (AA) family 

• Career Management Field 

(CMF) 

Internal workforce Current characteristics of 

job incumbents. 

• Numbers and demographics of 

current job incumbents 

• Gains-promotions-losses (in 

job) 

Worker-Oriented •

Personal 

Characteristics 

Occupational or work 

interests 

Characteristic preferences 

for, or likes and dislikes 

regarding, specific workrelated requirements. 

• Realistic 

• Artistic 

• Investigative 

• Social 

• Enterprising 

• Conventional 

Occupational or work 

values 

Characteristic goals, 

beliefs, or ideals 

regarding specific workrelated requirements. 

• Autonomy 

• Creativity 

• Feedback 

• Independence 

• Team orientation 

• Variety 

Work temperament or 

styles 

Characteristic behavioral 

tendencies, habits, or 

styles reflecting 

preferences for specific 

work-related 

requirements. 

• Achievement/effort 

• Concern for others 

• Cooperation 

• Dependability 

• Initiative 

• Leadership orientation 

• Persistence 

• Stress tolerance 

7 
Table 1. (continued) 

Category/ 

Domain Subdomain Definition 

Representative Examples 

(Specific to Army) 

Worker-Oriented (continued) 

Knowledges and 

Skills 

Basic workplace 

knowledges and skills 

Basic, developed 

capacities that facilitate 

the learning and 

acquisition of new 

knowledges and skills and 

that are required to at 

least some degree in 

virtually all jobs. 

• Basic math facility 

• Reading skill or 

comprehension 

• Written communication 

Cross-functional 

knowledges and skills 

Generic, developed 

capacities that facilitate 

the performance of the 

technical and nontechnical requirements 

common to a wide range 

of jobs. 

• Information gathering and 

management 

• Oral communication 

• Self-directed learning and 

development 

• Self-management 

• Teamwork 

Occupation or jobspecific knowledges and 

skills 

Specific, developed 

capacities that are needed 

to perform the technical 

and non-technical 

requirements specific to 

an occupation/job. 

• Close combat 

• Basic electronic design and 

repair 

• Basic mechanical knowledge 

and repair 

Aptitude and 

Abilities 

General Capacity to perform the 

general mental and 

physical requirements of 

the job; includes level of 

complexity needed (high, 

medium, low). 

• General cognitive ability 

• Physical ability 

• Psychomotor ability 

Specific Capacity to perform the 

specific mental and 

physical requirements of 

the job; includes level of 

complexity needed (high, 

medium, low). 

• Arm-hand steadiness 

• Hand-eye coordination 

• Manual dexterity 

• Pattern recognition 

• Perceptual speed and accuracy 

Experience and 

Education 

Work/job-related 

experience and training 

The types and amounts 

of job/work-related 

experience and training 

desirable or needed to 

perform the requirements 

of the job. 

• Athletic 

• Driving and piloting 

• Electrical 

• Health services and medical 

• Mechanical 

• Protective service 

• Technical vocational 

Formal education and 

credentials 

The types of degrees 

earned and formal 

credentials (e.g., licenses/ 

certifications) desirable 

or needed to perform the 

requirements of the job. 

• Post-secondary degree 

• Graduate degree 

• Credentialing examination 

• Union, guild, or professional 

association membership 

8 
Table 2. Purposes for Clustering MOS and Their Relevant Descriptor Domains 

Purpose 

Primary Clustering 

Descriptor(s) Comment(s) 

1. To create occupational 

clusters to facilitate the 

sampling of MOS and the 

conduct of criterion-related 

validation studies. 

Higher-order and lower-order 

work activities; any or all 

occupation-specific 

knowledges, skills, and 

abilities (KSAs). 

Could facilitate the conduct of criterionrelated validation studies by grouping 

equivalent occupations. This would enable 

the Army to obtain a sufficiently 

representative sample of MOS that would 

permit generalization to other MOS, but 

minimize difficulties in obtaining the 

requisite data. 

2. To explore and/or detect 

candidates for “mid-range” 

criterion measures. 

Higher-order work activities. For potential use in studying the feasibility 

of developing new performance criterion 

measures, or refining existing criterion 

measures, applicable across multiple MOS. 

3. To research and/or explore the 

utility of non-performance 

descriptor-based MOS subclusters, either in and of 

themselves, or within broader 

performance descriptor-based 

clusters, for predicting nonperformance criteria (i.e., 

attrition or retention-related).a

Any or all KSAs; also, 

potentially, organization/job 

context descriptors (for aspects 

of research related to personorganization fit issues). 

Clustering descriptor(s) would be selected 

based on specific research question(s) of 

interest. Could address such questions as, 

“Are there clusters of MOS for which 

certain types or combinations of KSAs are 

predictive of attrition, non-technical 

performance (e.g., peer leadership), or 

person-organization fit?” b

4. To research and/or explore the 

utility of performance 

descriptor-based MOS subclusters within broader nonperformance descriptor-based 

clusters. 

Lower-order and/or higherorder work activities. Could address such questions as, “What 

MOS within the existing Aptitude Areas 

(AA) share similar performance 

requirements (useful for supporting a 

validity or test transportability approach)?” c

a

 For all purposes listed that involve “researching/exploring the utility of...” it should be understood the central question guiding 

all such research is the “utility for what?” (i.e., what is the criterion on which to evaluate this research?). In some cases, this 

criterion could be the actual criterion data collected from the validation studies (i.e., which clustering solution maximizes 

classification efficiency), provided there are criterion data for a sufficient number of MOS. Alternatively, the criterion could be 

more qualitative in nature, along the lines of, “Does the clustering solution answer – or shed more light on – the question asked?” 

These later cases still require advance specification of the parameters for acceptable answers to such questions. b

 Should aggregate classification gains accrue from the use of alternative criteria (e.g., retention-related) but their maximization 

result in different MOS assignments than maximizing aggregate technical performance, then additional research would be needed 

to scale the relative value of gains on each criterion. 

c

 Such an approach would also be useful for identifying clustering solutions that maximize technical performance. 

• How should theater or operation-specific requirements (e.g., Operation Iraqi 

Freedom) be handled? What implications, if any, do they have for the “shelf-life” of 

the proposed approach? 

• How to incorporate information about the work or job context or conditions under 

which work must be performed (e.g., work activity by work activity, descriptor 

domain by descriptor domain, or as a separate, independent descriptor domain)? 

• How can descriptors (or information on descriptors, from multiple, independent 

domains) be combined in new, innovative ways that both enhance the description of 

similarities and differences in Army jobs and minimize the costs of collecting job 

data? 

9 
10 

Table 2. (continued) 

Purpose 

Primary Clustering 

Descriptor(s) Comment(s) 

5. To research various forms of 

a two-stage classification 

model: Similar to #1 

(above), but sub-cluster 

within existing AA clusters.d

Interests, values, 

temperaments. 

A two-stage procedure might assign 

Soldiers to broad clusters first and then 

make further differential assignments 

within clusters. Assignments to broad 

clusters (i.e., the first stage) could be on 

the basis of interests and/or fit with the 

peer leadership and team support 

performance requirements. Specific 

assignments (i.e., the second stage) within 

the broad clusters could be made on the 

basis of AFQT, AA, Army priorities, or 

openings. Alternatively, if the second 

stage were counseling/guidance-oriented, 

one could mitigate response bias problems 

with some of these measures.e

6. To research various forms of 

a “two-track” (as opposed to 

two-stage) 

selection/classification 

model. 

It would depend on premises of 

the second “track,” but most 

likely applications would 

involve either cross-functional 

skills (e.g., oral 

communication, teamwork, 

critical thinking) or 

specialized/advanced skills or 

knowledge, as might be used 

for an alternative track for 

experienced applicants, or 

applicants with relevant 

certifications. 

Could address such questions as, “Are 

there clusters of MOS for which certain 

specialized predictor types (e.g., crossfunctional skills, or prior work 

experience) might be leveraged?” 

d

 The Army’s current classification process consists of a single stage. Specifically, new Army recruits are shown one or more 

possible MOS opportunities on a career counselor’s display screen, then make a choice. Which MOS opportunities are presented 

is based on a joint function of recruits’ AFQT and AA scores, Army priorities, and technical training seat availability.

e

 Because of the way the Army’s basic and technical training are currently structured, it would be difficult to do multi-stage 

classification at different points in time (like the Air Force) by delaying the final job assignment until after basic training. 
• What metrics, or scales, should be used to assess the targeted descriptors? How will 

these assessments be scored (e.g., in terms of importance, needed at entry, proficiency 

level required)? 

Answers to all of these issues could not be fully specified up front or examined empirically 

during the course of this initial prototyping effort. On other issues, such as the first one, preliminary 

decisions were made by the project team, based on the ACRP’s recommendations. Those decisions 

formed the basis for a set of design principles, which are summarized in Table 3. These principles 

guided and informed the development of the prototype job descriptors. 

Table 3. Guiding Design Principles for Developing Army Job Descriptors 

1. The number of job descriptors constituting each targeted domain should be as comprehensive as possible 

(i.e., no important descriptors should be missing), but manageable. The “optimal” number of descriptors 

within a domain should be sufficient for describing important similarities and differences in Army jobs 

without compromising comprehensiveness and the approach’s feasibility. 

2. Job descriptors must fit within, and reflect, the applicable domain definition; for example, a work 

activities descriptor should reflect a work activity, as operationalized by the project team. 

3. The formulation and selection of job descriptors should be grounded in, and informed by, relevant 

theory, existing taxonomies, and past research. 

4. Job descriptors, particularly work activities, should be specified at multiple levels of generality that can 

be organized hierarchically to support the Army’s needs for job information at multiple levels of 

aggregation. The “optimal” number of levels should be sufficient to capture both the specificity needed 

for criterion measure development and the generality needed for transporting validity estimates, without 

being too cumbersome to develop or collect data on. 

5. Job descriptors within the same domain and at the same level of generality should be of similar breadth 

and/or scope. 

6. Cross-job descriptors – that is, descriptors that can be applied across Army jobs – should be defined so 

that a particular requirement can describe multiple jobs if the jobs do in fact share a similar requirement, 

at some level of generality. 

7. Where appropriate, explore job descriptors, or information on descriptors, from multiple, traditionally 

independent domains that could be combined in new and innovative ways that both enhance the description of 

similarities and differences in Army jobs and minimize the costs of collecting job information. 

8. Job descriptor statements should be written in a manner that reflects their meaning or application within 

the Army context; that is, descriptors should be customized to the Army context. 

9. Job descriptors within the same domain should be defined to be as conceptually independent as possible; 

that is, redundancies and overlap among descriptors representing the same domain should be minimized. 

10. Job descriptor labels and statements should be selected or developed in a manner that maximizes their 

definitional integrity and likely measurability; that is, they should lend themselves to the development of 

metrics (or scales) that permit the reliable and valid assessment of Army jobs against said descriptors. 

11. Job descriptor labels and definitions should be written in “user-friendly” language, without the use of 

jargon or complex terminology. 

12. Job descriptor labels and definitions should be written in a conceptually simple and clear manner. 

13. Job descriptor definitions should be descriptive, not prescriptive or evaluative. 

Note. Several of these guidelines are adapted from “Recommendations for an NSSB Common Language for Skill 

Standards” (NSSB, 1998). 

Our overall approach in developing the descriptors was to build on existing job analysis 

systems, in particular the O*NET, and earlier job analysis efforts for the Army (e.g., Knapp & 

11 
Campbell, 2006; Knapp, Sager, & Tremble, 2005), where advisable. In the case of existing job analysis 

systems, this typically involved adapting the most promising descriptors from those systems by 

adding new ones or modifying existing descriptors to ensure their relevance and applicability to the 

Army. This approach was in keeping with the ACRP’s recommendation that the prototype job 

analysis system need not be built from scratch, and that selected elements of existing job analysis 

systems, with the appropriate modifications, could prove useful in describing Army jobs. A further 

advantage to this approach is that incorporating elements of an existing system, such as the O*NET, 

into the Army prototype permits linkages to those systems and any relevant data collected on them 

(and vice versa). These linkages could be of value to the Army in the future for other kinds of 

applications (e.g., transitioning existing Soldiers to civilian jobs, identifying civilian career 

development opportunities for Reserve or National Guard Soldiers to enhance their skill sets). 

Development of the Prototype Descriptors 

Based on the guiding design principles, a descriptor development blueprint was created. 

Similar to a test blueprint or measurement plan, the descriptor blueprint defined each domain and 

specified how many levels and at what level of detail the descriptors within that domain were to be 

written and the steps to follow in developing them. See Appendix A for relevant portions of the 

blueprint. 

 Prototype descriptors and accompanying questionnaires were developed for a total of six out 

of the seven domains identified by the ACRP for development in this prototype. Only occupationspecific knowledges and skills did not have descriptors developed for it. A preliminary effort was 

made to develop descriptors in this domain, but the resulting descriptors tended to closely correspond 

to those being developed for the job-specific work activity domain (e.g., knowledge or skill to do X). 

Accordingly, the development of occupation-specific knowledge and skill descriptors were dropped 

from the development plan.3

 Consistent with the ACRP’s recommendations, work activity 

descriptors were developed at multiple levels of specificity. The highest level comprises a 

standardized set of cross-job descriptors that could be used to consistently rate all jobs in the Army, 

followed by two lower levels of descriptors that were more job-specific. Ratings data were not 

collected on these higher-order work descriptors during the field test. This was because practical 

constraints required us to prioritize the domains to be tested. The cross-job work activity descriptors 

were determined to be lower priority, relative to other descriptor domains, because (a) many of the 

descriptors on which these cross-job descriptors were based were first developed and examined in 

previous Army funded research whose goals and purpose were comparable to those of the current 

effort; and (b) the limited number and nature of the MOS sampled for the current field test were 

likely to limit the kinds of conclusions that could be drawn about the descriptors’ usefulness. 

Although the higher-order work descriptors developed for the project were not field tested, they were 

piloted during the workshops conducted for the O*NET Evaluation study to confirm their relevance 

for describing MOS and their interpretability to Army supervisors or incumbents. Table 4 

summarizes the targeted domains for which descriptors and questionnaires were developed and field 

tested in this project, organized by category and level of description (i.e., cross-job versus jobspecific). 

 

3

 Consistent with one of the ACRP’s recommendations, there could be considerable value in incorporating 

occupation-specific knowledges and skill-type descriptors into work activities, rather than treating them as two 

separate domains. Specifically, occupation-specific knowledges and skills could be used to describe work activities 

that are primarily knowledge-based or cognitive in nature (e.g., problem solving or decision-making). 

12 
Table 4. Descriptor Domains Developed for Prototype Questionnaires by Category and Level 

of Description 

 Category 

Level of Description Worker-Oriented Work-Oriented 

Cross-Job • Work Abilities 

• Work Interests 

• Work Values 

• Work Styles 

• Work-Organizational Context 

• Work Activities (Higher-Order) 

Job-Specific • Work Activities (Lower-Order) 

In general, developing the descriptors for each domain involved the following steps: 

1. Collect source materials (e.g., Soldier Training Publications) or compile candidate 

descriptors for the targeted domain from relevant theory and existing taxonomies, 

such as those available in the O*NET system. 

2. Draft a preliminary taxonomy of descriptors for the targeted domain using those 

source materials from the Army, and following the specifications outlined in the 

blueprint. Project staff modified existing taxonomies to make them relevant to the 

Army. 

3. Review the preliminary taxonomy internally for consistency with the blueprint’s 

specifications. 

4. Conduct an external review of the descriptors for the targeted domain with military 

personnel researchers, military job analysts, or Army SMEs to ensure that the 

descriptors were relevant, sufficiently comprehensive, and understandable. 

 Table 5 summarizes the source(s) that served as the primary basis on which prototype 

descriptors for the targeted domains were developed. 

 

13 
Table 5. Primary Source(s) for the Descriptor Domains Developed for Prototype 

Questionnaires 

Domain Source(s) 

Work-Oriented 

Work Activities For the cross-job (or highest order) work activities, the Job Activities and 

Task Categories from the U.S. Army SYNVAL project (Peterson et al., 

1990). The specifications for the job-specific (or lower-order) activities were 

modelled after the performance categories and requirements from the U.S. 

Army PerformM21 project (Knapp & Campbell, 2006) and the O*NET’s 

Detailed Work Activities (DWAs) (Dietrich, Hendrickson-Larson, Hoppe, 

Paige, & Rosenow, 2002; National O*NET Center, 2003). 

Work-Organizational Context O*NET Work Context taxonomy (McPhail et al., 1995) 

Worker-Oriented 

Work Abilities O*NET Abilities taxonomy (Fleishman, Wetrogan, Uhlman, & MarshallMies, 1995) 

Work Interests O*NET Generalized Work Activities (GWA) taxonomy (Jeanneret & 

Borman, 1995), supplemented by Holland’s (1997) RIASEC (Realistic, 

Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional) model, a 

typology for categorizing individuals and work environments 

Work Values Work Values taxonomy from the U.S. Army Select21 project (Knapp et al., 

2005), which was partly based on Dawis and Lofquist’s (1984) theory of 

work adjustment 

Work Styles Work Styles taxonomy from the U.S. Army Select21 project (Knapp et al., 

2005), which represented a slightly modified version of the O*NET Work 

Styles taxonomy (Borman, McKee, & Schneider, 1995) 

Selection of Rating Scales 

To capture data on the various work- and worker-oriented domain descriptors, we 

selected among several rating scales used in previous research. For all domains except work 

context, we selected a 5-point absolute (as opposed to relative) importance scale, where 1 = Not 

important and 5 = Extremely important. Theoretically, a relative scale (e.g., Less important than 

other activities/abilities/work styles) might result in less negative skew – which is often a 

problem with job analysis ratings. However, relative ratings can limit comparability across jobs. 

Therefore, all the rating scales used in the field test questionnaires used absolute rating scales. 

Work context descriptors were rated on a single 5-point scale ranging from 1 (Not at all 

characteristic) to 5 (Very characteristic). Because work context descriptors (e.g., exposure to 

danger) could be expected to vary in combat versus garrison settings, respondents were asked to 

rate the descriptors twice – once for combat and once for non-combat settings. 

In addition to the importance rating scale, the work activities (and work activity 

categories) were rated on two additional scales. To obtain information relevant to training 

applications and for facilitating the selection or classification of Soldiers who will be successful 

14 
in Initial Entry Training, one scale rated the difficulty for first-term Soldiers in their MOS to 

learn to perform the activity through classroom training (1 = Very easy to learn, 5 = Very 

difficult to learn). The third and final scale assessed criticality, which is importance ratings but 

with the emphasis on the unit’s mission. Specifically, the scale asked respondents to rate the 

seriousness of the negative consequences for a Soldier’s unit or the unit’s mission if a first-term 

Soldier in their MOS failed to successfully perform the activity (1 = Not serious, 5 = Extremely 

serious). 

Finally, the worker-oriented questionnaires instructed respondents to rank order the 

descriptors within a targeted domain on their importance (e.g., from 1 = Most Important to 30 = 

Least Important). This exercise was included on the questionnaires for three purposes: (a) to 

provide additional data to examine participants’ responses to the ratings scales (e.g., did 

participants’ importance ratings match their rankings?); (b) to enhances the questionnaires’ 

ability to capture cross-MOS differences; and (c) to open up relative-based options for scoring 

the questionnaires that were otherwise not available using absolute scales. A similar rank order 

exercise had been used in job-side measures developed to support the scoring of new predictor 

measures for the Select21 research program (Knapp et al., 2005). 

Development and Pilot Testing of the Questionnaires 

After the descriptor taxonomies were finalized, questionnaires were drafted to measure 

the targeted domains. Preliminary versions of the job-specific work activity questionnaires were 

administered to Army SMEs in several targeted MOS as part of a companion evaluation of the 

use of the O*NET system for describing Army jobs (Russell et al., 2008). All of the 

questionnaires were pilot tested with Army SMEs, both junior enlisted and NCOs, in August 

2008 at Forts Bragg and Riley. Two significant changes were made to the questionnaires on the 

basis of this pilot. First, the work abilities taxonomy was condensed to make the questionnaire 

easier to complete without losing important information. Specifically, the initial abilities 

taxonomy, which was a slightly modified version of Fleishman’s abilities taxonomy, was 

condensed from 54 abilities to 30. This was accomplished by merging two or more similar 

abilities into a single ability, based on pilot test results combined with rational judgment. Second, 

the ranking task was dropped because it proved too cumbersome. 

Development of the Supporting Relational Database 

At present, no single database exists for centrally storing job analysis data collected from 

current efforts to describe Army jobs. Accordingly, the second major deliverable in this 

prototype effort was a supporting relational database. As envisioned by the ACRP, the primary 

purpose of this relational database is to systematically capture and store job analysis data in an 

ongoing fashion. These job analysis data, either individually or in combination with other 

relevant data (e.g., criterion-related validity estimates, individual level Soldier predictor-criterion 

data), could then be used to generate and refine solutions to the Army’s classification needs 

successively over time, as more data become available. Such an incremental approach balances 

demands on Army resources while providing the Army with reasonably sound and viable 

solutions to its enlisted classification objectives. 

15 
At present, the relational database contains tables and fields for capturing and storing 

information on (a) the MOS sampled, (b) the prototype job descriptors, (c) the scales used in the 

questionnaires, and (d) relevant summary statistics on the ratings collected on the prototype 

descriptors (e.g., means, standard deviations, median, inter-rater reliability estimates). A layout 

describing the contents of the final database can be found in Appendix B. In brief, developing the 

supporting relational database involved the following steps: 

1. Design a relational database to encompass the elements comprising the prototype 

approach. After consultations with the Army, it was determined that a Microsoft 

Access database to be housed on an Army-owned server would sufficiently serve the 

Army’s research needs at this early stage. 

2. Program a working version of the relational database in Microsoft Access. 

3. Test and validate the working database using data collected from the field test. 

4. Finalize the database and upload it to an Army-owned server. 

The final database was delivered to ARI at the completion of the project and uploaded to 

an Army-owned server. Included in the final database are the summary statistics on the ratings 

collected during the field test for the six MOS sampled. 

16 
IV. Field Test of the Prototype Army Job Analysis Approach 

Method

Sample

Participants in the field test included junior enlisted Soldiers (E2-E4s) and NCOs (E5-

E7s) in six targeted MOS: (a) Infantryman (11B), (b) Armor Crewman (19K), (c) Signal Support 

Specialist (25U), (d) Light-Wheel Vehicle Mechanic (63B)4

, (e) Military Police (31B), and (f) 

Motor Transport Operator (88M). Participants for each MOS were randomly selected from 

rosters provided by the U.S. Army’s Human Resource Command (HRC). Both incumbents and 

supervisors were sampled to examine if the two groups systematically perceive and, thereby rate, 

the same job differently. 

The goal was to obtain complete data from at least 50 – 60 respondents per questionnaire 

for each MOS. We assumed no greater than a 10% response rate. When sampling respondents 

our target was a 60-40% split between junior enlisted Soldiers (incumbents) and NCOs 

(supervisors) within each MOS.5

 A 60-40 split was chosen because NCOs tend to exhibit higher 

response rates, on average, to these kinds of questionnaires than more junior Soldiers. For most 

MOS, it was not possible to achieve our 60-40 targeted split for various reasons (e.g., the size of 

the MOS, the number of Soldiers currently deployed and thereby inaccessible to participate in 

the field test). 

Description of Questionnaires 

Work Activities. The Work Activities questionnaires asked incumbents and supervisors to 

rate various work activities and work activity categories specific to their MOS on three 5-point 

scales: (a) importance to the job of first-term Soldiers in their MOS, (b) difficulty for first-term 

Soldiers in their MOS to learn to perform the activity through classroom training, and (c) 

seriousness of the negative consequences for a Soldier’s unit or the unit’s mission if a first-term 

Soldier in their MOS failed to successfully perform the activity. Consistent with the ACRP 

recommendations to have multiple levels of specificity in task domain, respondents were asked 

to provide ratings for both discrete work activities (e.g., “Mount and dismount machine guns or 

other personal weapons on tripods”) and categories of work activities (e.g., “Operate and 

maintain firearms and personal weapons [e.g., grenade launchers, grenades]”). The number of 

work activities and work activity categories varied by MOS. Copies of the Work Activities 

questionnaires for all six MOS are provided in Appendix C. Unlike work context, we did not 

collect two sets of ratings on work activities, one set targeting a combat environment and the 

second focused on a non-combat environment. A questionnaire measuring the cross-job (or 

highest-order) work activity descriptors was not developed and administered during the field test. 

As mentioned previously, the cross-job work activity descriptors were determined to be lower 

priority, relative to other descriptor domains, because (a) many of the descriptors on which these 

cross-job descriptors were based were first developed and examined in previous Army funded 

 

4

 The MOS designation for this MOS is changing from 63B to 91B. This report uses the 63B designation. 

5

 Throughout the remainder of the report, the term “incumbents” is used to refer to the junior enlisted Soldiers and 

“supervisors” when referring to NCOs. 

17 
research whose goals and purpose were comparable to those of the current effort; and (b) the limited 

number and nature of the MOS sampled for the current field test were likely to limit the kinds of 

conclusions that could be drawn about the descriptors’ usefulness. 

Work Context. The Work Context questionnaire (shown in Appendix D) asked 

respondents to rate the extent to which 46 work context descriptors are characteristic for firstterm Soldiers in their MOS, using a 5-point scale. An example work context descriptor is, 

“Exposed, or potentially exposed, to manufactured (i.e., man-made) hazards or contaminants.” 

Respondents rated each statement twice, once for non-combat zone field assignments and once 

for combat zone field assignments. 

Work Abilities. The Work Abilities questionnaire asked respondents to rate the 

importance of 30 ability descriptors (e.g., “Exert maximum muscle force to lift, push, pull or 

carry objects”) to the job of first-term Soldiers in their MOS on a 5-point scale. The Work 

Abilities questionnaire, along with the remaining worker-oriented questionnaires, is shown in 

Appendix E. 

Work Styles. On the Work Styles questionnaire, respondents rated the importance of 20 

work style descriptors to the job of first term Soldiers in their MOS. A sample work style 

descriptor is, “Showing a cooperative and friendly attitude towards others they dislike or 

disagree with.”

Work Interests. The Work Interests questionnaire asked incumbents and supervisors to 

rate the importance of 30 interest descriptors (e.g., “Protecting others”) to the job of first term 

Soldiers in their MOS.

Work Values. The Work Values questionnaire also requested a single importance rating 

for each of 30 work values descriptors (e.g., “Plan their work with little supervision”).

Procedure for Administering the Questionnaires 

The questionnaires were administered online using ARI’s InterForm software application. 

Because our goal was to keep the administration time per participant to no more than 20-25 

minutes, the questionnaires were administered using a matrix sampling approach (i.e., not all 

participants completed all questionnaires). Four blocks of questionnaires were administered to 

participants, as summarized in Table 6. 

Table 6. Questionnaires Administered in Field Test by Block

Block Questionnaires (in Order of Administration) 

1 (a) Work Activities; (b) Work Interests; and (c) Work Values 

2 (a) Work Activities; (b) Work Abilities; and (c) Work Styles 

3 (a) Work Context; (b) Work Interests; and (c) Work Values 

4 (a) Work Context; (b) Work Abilities; and (c) Work Styles 

The blocks were constructed so that each questionnaire was administered in two of the four 

blocks. Each block consisted of three questionnaires, the first measuring one of the workoriented domains (work activities or context) and the other two targeting the worker-oriented 

18 
domains (work abilities, styles, values, or interests). Participants within an MOS were randomly 

assigned to each block. 

Invitations were e-mailed to selected participants’ Army Knowledge Online (AKO) 

accounts. The invitation explained that ARI had been tasked to develop a new job analysis 

approach to support the Army’s needs of ensuring that the right Soldier is classified to the right 

MOS and that they were being asked to complete a series of questionnaires to evaluate this new 

approach. The invitation also stated that all responses would be treated as confidential and used 

for research purposes only. 

The e-mail included a signed memo from the ARI Unit Chief of the Personnel 

Assessment Research Unit (PARU), who endorsed the research project. The memo was intended 

to increase the response rate by signaling the importance of the research effort. 

The invitations contained a web link to the questionnaires. All of the questionnaires were 

administered on a secure .mil server. When accessing the questionnaires, all participants were 

asked to create a user ID and password. The ID and password allowed participants to save their 

responses and exit the questionnaires, so that they could return to them where they had 

previously left off, as opposed to re-starting at the beginning. 

Participants were given a suspense date of 2 weeks after receipt of the invitation. 

Reminder notices were sent to participants one week into the 2-week window. 

Questionnaire Instructions

Consistent with the Army’s personnel management objectives, participants were 

instructed to rate Skill Level 1 duty positions (i.e., entry-level jobs) within their MOS. 

Specifically, participants were asked to consider “the typical first-term Soldier in their MOS who 

is at Skill Level 1 (SL1) and who has completed at least one year of duty in a typical unit 

assignment and position and at least one series of Green-Amber-Red training cycles and unit 

operational requirements.” Participants were then provided descriptions of the scale(s) on which 

they would make their ratings. 

At the conclusion of each questionnaire, participants were asked to provide feedback on 

the questionnaire’s (a) ease of use, (b) instructions, (c) clarity of the statements they were asked 

to rate, (d) relevance to their MOS, and (e) usefulness for describing the requirements of their 

MOS. For each of these five dimensions, participants provided ratings on a 1 (Very bad) to 5 

(Very good) scale. Additionally, participants were asked to respond to three open-ended 

questions regarding their ratings and their reactions to the questionnaire. 

Response Rates and Completion Times 

Response rates for the field test blocks are reported in Tables 7 and 8. The response rates 

by MOS ranged from 4.5% to 20.2%, with many rates being less than 10%. Among the MOS, 

25U evidenced the highest response rates across all four questionnaire blocks, perhaps owing to 

participants’ greater accessibility to an Internet connection or more frequent usage of their AKO 

19 
accounts compared to Soldiers in the other MOS. The percentage of participants that completed 

the questionnaires relative to those accessing it was considerably higher at 50% or greater. 

20 
Table7. Response Rates for Work Activity Questionnaire Blocks by MOS and Rater Type 

Accessed 

Questionnaires 

Completed 

Questionnaires 

N % % % 

MOS/Rater Type Solicited N Solicited N Accessed Solicited 

Block 1 – Work Activities, Abilities, and Work Styles Questionnaires 

11B 706 62 8.78% 32 51.6% 4.5% 

Incumbents 335 7 2.09% 4 57.1% 1.2% 

Supervisors 371 55 14.82% 28 50.9% 7.5% 

19K 767 35 4.56% 34 97.1% 4.4% 

Incumbents 367 8 2.18% 5 62.5% 1.4% 

Supervisors 400 27 6.75% 19 70.4% 4.8% 

25U 746 125 16.76% 78 62.4% 10.5% 

Incumbents 373 32 8.58% 21 65.6% 5.6% 

Supervisors 373 93 24.93% 57 61.3% 15.3% 

31B 745 94 12.62% 62 66.0% 8.3% 

Incumbents 372 19 5.11% 12 63.2% 3.2% 

Supervisors 373 73 19.57% 49 67.1% 13.1% 

63B 775 56 7.23% 36 64.3% 4.6% 

Incumbents 396 12 3.03% 6 50.0% 1.5% 

Supervisors 379 43 11.35% 30 69.8% 7.9% 

88M 709 70 9.87% 49 70.0% 6.9% 

Incumbents 358 14 3.91% 9 64.3% 2.5% 

Supervisors 370 55 14.86% 39 70.9% 10.5% 

Totals 4,448 442 9.94% 291 65.84% 6.54% 

Incumbents 2,201 92 4.18% 57 61.96% 2.59% 

Supervisors 2,266 346 15.27% 222 64.16% 9.80% 

Block 2 – Work Activities, Work Interests, and Work Values Questionnaires 

11B 702 65 9.26% 35 53.8% 5.0% 

Incumbents 336 11 3.27% 5 45.5% 1.5% 

Supervisors 366 54 14.75% 30 55.6% 8.2% 

19K 750 34 4.53% 25 73.5% 3.3% 

Incumbents 350 11 3.14% 9 81.8% 2.6% 

Supervisors 400 23 5.75% 16 69.6% 4.0% 

25U 746 128 17.16% 85 66.4% 11.4% 

Incumbents 373 35 9.38% 20 57.1% 5.4% 

Supervisors 373 93 24.93% 65 69.9% 17.4% 

31B 745 83 11.14% 48 57.8% 6.4% 

Incumbents 372 9 2.42% 6 66.7% 1.6% 

Supervisors 373 72 19.30% 42 58.3% 11.3% 

63B 781 43 5.51% 29 67.4% 3.7% 

Incumbents 396 13 3.28% 8 61.5% 2.0% 

Supervisors 385 30 7.79% 21 70.0% 5.5% 

88M 728 66 9.07% 48 72.7% 6.6% 

Incumbents 345 13 3.77% 10 76.9% 2.9% 

Supervisors 364 53 14.56% 38 71.7% 10.4% 

Totals 4,452 419 9.41% 270 64.44% 6.06% 

Incumbents 2,172 92 4.24% 58 63.04% 2.67% 

Supervisors 2,261 325 14.37% 212 65.23% 9.38% 

21 
Table 8. Response Rates for Work Context Questionnaire Blocks by MOS and Rater Type 

Accessed 

Questionnaires 

Completed 

Questionnaires 

N % % % 

MOS/Rater Type Solicited N Solicited N Accessed Solicited 

Block 3 – Work Context, Abilities, and Work Styles Questionnaires 

11B 706 66 9.3% 47 71.2% 6.7% 

Incumbents 339 17 5.0% 10 58.8% 2.9% 

Supervisors 367 48 13.1% 36 77.1% 9.8% 

19K 767 72 9.4% 50 69.4% 6.5% 

Incumbents 367 6 1.6% 3 50.0% 0.8% 

Supervisors 400 64 16.0% 46 71.9% 11.5% 

25U 746 201 26.9% 129 64.2% 17.3% 

Incumbents 373 52 13.9% 34 65.4% 9.1% 

Supervisors 373 145 38.9% 93 64.1% 24.9% 

31B 744 82 11.0% 54 65.9% 7.3% 

Incumbents 372 12 3.2% 9 75.0% 2.4% 

Supervisors 372 69 18.5% 45 65.2% 12.1% 

63B 775 78 10.1% 50 64.1% 6.5% 

Incumbents 396 11 2.8% 6 54.5% 1.5% 

Supervisors 379 67 17.7% 44 65.7% 11.6% 

88M 705 131 18.6% 80 61.1% 11.3% 

Incumbents 339 38 11.2% 19 50.0% 5.6% 

Supervisors 366 91 24.9% 61 67.0% 16.7% 

Totals 4,443 630 14.18% 410 65.08% 9.23% 

Incumbents 2,186 136 6.22% 81 59.56% 3.71% 

Supervisors 2,257 484 21.44% 325 67.15% 14.40% 

Block 4 – Work Context, Work Interests, and Work Values Questionnaires 

11B 707 54 7.6% 38 70.4% 5.4% 

Incumbents 335 12 3.6% 5 41.7% 1.5% 

Supervisors 372 42 11.3% 33 78.6% 8.9% 

19K 750 59 7.9% 42 71.2% 5.6% 

Incumbents 350 6 1.7% 5 83.3% 1.4% 

Supervisors 400 53 13.3% 37 69.8% 9.3% 

25U 746 223 29.9% 151 67.7% 20.2% 

Incumbents 373 56 15.0% 37 66.1% 9.9% 

Supervisors 373 167 44.8% 114 68.3% 30.6% 

31B 745 88 11.8% 63 71.6% 8.5% 

Incumbents 372 19 5.1% 12 63.2% 3.2% 

Supervisors 373 67 18.0% 51 76.1% 13.7% 

63B 781 61 7.8% 39 63.9% 5.0% 

Incumbents 396 18 4.5% 9 50.0% 2.3% 

Supervisors 385 43 11.2% 30 69.8% 7.8% 

88M 706 143 20.2% 96 67.1% 13.6% 

Incumbents 338 24 7.1% 11 45.8% 3.3% 

Supervisors 368 119 32.3% 85 71.4% 23.1% 

Totals 4,435 628 14.16% 429 68.31% 9.67% 

Incumbents 2,164 135 6.24% 79 58.52% 3.65% 

Supervisors 2,271 491 21.62% 350 71.28% 15.41% 

22 
Tables 9 and 10 reflect the completion rates by questionnaire, broken out by MOS and 

rater type. Both raw numbers and percentages are reported to determine whether there were large 

differences in the completion rates between MOS and within MOS by rater type. Because 

portions of the analyses are dependent on sample size (e.g., indices of reliability), it was 

important to determine the comparative sample sizes for each questionnaire included in the 

research. Completion rates reflected a less than ideal split between the incumbents and 

supervisors. Even though the solicited sample provided by HRC oversampled incumbents to the 

extent feasible (a 60-40% was desired), the splits in the obtained sample were generally around 

20%-80% between incumbents and supervisors. 

Table 9. Completed Work-Oriented Questionnaires (Work Activities and Work Context) 

Work Activities Work Context 

MOS/Rater Type N % N %

11B 67 85 

Incumbents 9 13.4% 15 17.6% 

Supervisors 58 86.6% 70 82.4% 

19K 49 92 

Incumbents 14 28.6% 8 8.8% 

Supervisors 35 71.4% 83 91.2% 

25U 163 280 

Incumbents 41 25.2% 71 25.4% 

Supervisors 122 74.8% 207 73.9% 

31B 110 117 

Incumbents 18 16.4% 21 18.0% 

Supervisors 91 82.7% 96 82.0% 

63B 65 89 

Incumbents 14 21.5% 15 16.8% 

Supervisors 51 78.5% 74 83.2% 

88M 97 176 

Incumbents 19 19.6% 30 17.0% 

Supervisors 77 79.4% 146 83.0% 

Totals 551 839 

Incumbents 115 20.9% 160 19.1% 

Supervisors 434 78.8% 676 80.6% 

23 
Table 10. Completed Worker-Oriented Questionnaires (Abilities, Work Styles, Work Interests, 

Work Values) 

Work Abilities Work Styles Work Values Work Interests 

MOS/Rater Type N % N % N % N %

11B 79 79 73 73 

Incumbents 14 17.7% 14 17.7% 10 13.7% 10 13.7% 

Supervisors 65 82.3% 65 82.3% 63 86.3% 63 86.3% 

19K 74 74 67 67 

Incumbents 8 11.0% 8 11.0% 14 20.9% 14 20.9% 

Supervisors 65 89.0% 65 89.0% 53 79.1% 53 79.1% 

25U 207 207 236 236 

Incumbents 55 26.8% 55 26.8% 57 24.2% 57 24.2% 

Supervisors 150 73.2% 150 73.2% 179 75.9% 179 75.9% 

31B 116 116 111 111 

Incumbents 21 18.3% 21 18.3% 18 16.2% 18 16.2% 

Supervisors 94 81.7% 94 81.7% 93 83.8% 93 83.8% 

63B 86 86 68 68 

Incumbents 12 14.0% 12 14.0% 17 25.0% 17 25.0% 

Supervisors 74 86.1% 74 86.1% 51 75.0% 51 75.0% 

88M 129 129 144 144 

Incumbents 28 21.9% 28 21.9% 21 14.6% 21 14.6% 

Supervisors 100 78.1% 100 78.1% 123 85.4% 123 85.4% 

Totals 691 691 699 699 

Incumbents 138 20.0% 138 20.0% 137 19.6% 137 19.6% 

Supervisors 548 79.3% 548 79.3% 562 80.4% 562 80.4% 

Completion times by questionnaire block, MOS, and rater type are summarized in Table 

11. Consistent with our target, the average time to complete each field test block was generally 

less than 20 minutes. Participants took the longest to complete Blocks 1 and 2, which included 

the Work Activities questionnaire, generally the longest measures of those administered. Each 

consisted of more than 30 items and required three ratings per item. Across all blocks, 

incumbents and supervisors within an MOS took similar amounts of time to complete the 

surveys. The largest MOS differences in completion times were for Blocks 1 and 2 (e.g., 11B 

took longer than all other MOS), which is likely attributable to different lengths in the Work 

Activities questionnaires. 

24 
Table 11. Completion Times by Questionnaire Block, MOS, and Rater Type 

MOS/Rater Type 

N 

Completed

Completion Time (in Minutes) 

M Med SD

90th 

Percentile

Block 1 – Work Activities, Abilities, and Work Styles Questionnaires 

11B 32 18.23 18.58 3.00 21.90 

Incumbents 4 19.64 21.07 3.48 21.93 

Supervisors 28 18.03 18.47 2.94 21.85 

19K 24 11.09 11.06 2.07 13.63 

Incumbents 5 10.99 10.85 2.14 12.97 

Supervisors 19 11.11 11.18 2.10 14.30 

25U 78 13.32 13.84 3.13 17.07 

Incumbents 21 12.76 13.60 3.50 16.92 

Supervisors 57 13.53 13.88 2.99 17.14 

31B 62 14.86 15.03 2.90 18.05 

Incumbents 12 15.14 14.96 3.52 21.35 

Supervisors 49 14.78 14.95 2.80 18.00 

63B 36 11.20 11.59 3.12 14.97 

Incumbents 6 8.81 7.38 3.48 13.62 

Supervisors 30 11.68 11.63 2.87 15.54 

88M 49 11.67 12.15 2.85 15.35 

Incumbents 9 12.89 13.37 2.58 16.60 

Supervisors 39 11.47 11.80 2.86 15.08 

Block 2 – Work Activities, Work Interests, and Work Values Questionnaires 

11B 35 17.95 18.73 3.64 22.33 

Incumbents 5 16.44 15.77 3.07 21.23 

Supervisors 30 18.21 19.30 3.71 22.72 

19K 25 12.09 12.25 3.09 16.09 

Incumbents 9 11.38 11.73 3.00 15.30 

Supervisors 16 12.48 12.48 3.16 16.63 

25U 85 14.49 14.98 3.35 19.10 

Incumbents 20 14.52 14.58 3.56 19.77 

Supervisors 65 14.48 15.05 3.31 18.40 

31B 48 15.22 15.98 3.88 20.21 

Incumbents 6 15.74 16.28 3.22 19.15 

Supervisors 42 15.14 15.98 3.99 20.65 

63B 29 15.22 15.98 3.88 20.21 

Incumbents 8 10.66 12.57 3.85 14.38 

Supervisors 21 11.09 11.67 3.13 15.72 

88M 48 13.53 13.80 2.70 17.24 

Incumbents 10 12.58 13.38 2.45 15.37 

Supervisors 38 13.78 14.06 2.73 17.34 

25 
Table 11. (continued)

MOS/Rater Type 

N 

Completed

Completion Time (in Minutes) 

M Med SD

90th 

Percentile

Block 3 – Work Context, Abilities, and Work Styles Questionnaires 

11B 47 11.59 11.73 2.97 15.03 

Incumbents 10 11.38 11.83 4.09 17.51 

Supervisors 36 11.66 11.80 2.70 14.51 

19K 50 11.11 11.90 2.73 14.55 

Incumbents 3 9.22 9.92 3.37 12.18 

Supervisors 46 11.19 11.90 2.70 14.63 

25U 129 11.00 11.45 2.89 14.15 

Incumbents 34 10.49 10.37 3.04 14.18 

Supervisors 93 11.22 11.47 2.85 13.93 

31B 54 11.76 11.74 2.28 15.03 

Incumbents 9 11.79 11.55 2.07 15.82 

Supervisors 45 11.76 11.77 2.34 15.00 

63B 50 11.18 11.37 3.08 14.85 

Incumbents 6 10.22 10.54 3.33 13.50 

Supervisors 44 11.32 11.64 3.06 15.18 

88M 80 11.52 11.98 2.56 14.65 

Incumbents 19 11.84 12.30 2.02 14.65 

Supervisors 61 11.42 11.83 2.71 14.83 

Block 4 – Work Context, Work Interests, and Work Values Questionnaires 

11B 38 12.51 13.16 3.14 16.22 

Incumbents 5 12.72 12.43 3.43 16.23 

Supervisors 33 12.48 13.42 3.15 16.21 

19K 42 11.77 12.25 2.85 15.16 

Incumbents 5 10.15 8.87 3.60 15.65 

Supervisors 37 11.99 12.62 2.72 15.00 

25U 151 12.61 12.90 3.02 15.85 

Incumbents 37 12.80 13.12 3.30 17.06 

Supervisors 114 12.55 12.90 2.94 15.63 

31B 63 12.09 12.52 2.78 15.63 

Incumbents 12 10.49 10.58 2.59 14.29 

Supervisors 51 12.46 12.65 2.71 15.82 

63B 39 12.61 13.17 2.56 15.95 

Incumbents 9 12.24 12.17 1.77 14.62 

Supervisors 30 12.72 13.29 2.77 15.97 

88M 96 12.43 12.93 2.56 15.17 

Incumbents 11 13.67 13.87 0.97 14.67 

Supervisors 85 12.27 12.83 2.66 15.22 

26 
Analysis Sample Demographics 

The demographic characteristics of the field test sample are summarized in Table 12. As 

noted previously, most of the participants were supervisors (N = 1,111, compared to N = 277 for 

incumbents). Additionally, the highest percentage of participants was from 25U, a level much 

higher than their representation in the Army population as a whole. Because of these sample size 

differences, the analyses were conducted by rater type and MOS in addition to reporting the 

results for the sample as a whole. 

Table 12. Demographic Characteristics of Field Test Sample 

Demographic 

Incumbents 

 (N = 277) 

Supervisors 

 (N = 1,111) 

Total 

(N = 1,390) 

N % N % N % 

MOS 

11B 24 8.7% 128 11.5% 152 10.9% 

19K 22 8.0% 118 10.6% 141 10.1% 

25U 112 40.7% 329 29.6% 443 31.8% 

63B 39 14.2% 187 16.8% 227 16.3% 

31B 29 10.5% 125 11.6% 154 11.1% 

88M 49 17.8% 223 20.1% 273 19.6% 

Rank 

PV2 24 8.66% N/A N/A 24 1.7% 

PFC 93 33.57% N/A N/A 93 6.7% 

SPC/CPL 160 57.76% N/A N/A 160 11.5% 

SGT N/A N/A 351 31.6% 351 25.2% 

SSG N/A N/A 436 39.2% 436 31.3% 

SFC N/A N/A 316 28.4% 316 22.7% 

Missing N/A N/A 8 0.7% 14 1.0% 

Months in Active Army 

Between 12 and 18 months 65 23.5% 4 .4% 69 5.0% 

Between 18 and 24 months 71 25.6% 6 .5% 77 5.5% 

Between 24 and 36 months 55 19.9% 19 1.7% 74 5.3% 

Between 36 and 48 months 32 11.6% 52 4.7% 84 6.0% 

More than 48 months 54 19.5% 1,026 92.4% 1,085 77.8% 

Missing 0 0 4 .4% 5 .4% 

Months Assigned to Duty Position 

6 months or less 119 42.9% 216 19.4% 277 19.9% 

Between 6 and 12 months 99 35.7% 259 23.3% 334 24.0% 

Between 12 and 18 months 40 14.3% 205 18.5% 269 19.3% 

Between 18 and 24 months 19 7.1% 128 11.5% 167 12.0% 

More than 24 months 0 0 302 27.2% 345 24.8% 

Missing 0 0 1 .1% 2 .1% 

Organizational Level 

Company/Troop/Battery 181 65.3% 563 50.7% 745 53.4% 

Battalion/Squadron 52 18.8% 304 27.4% 357 25.6% 

Regiment/Group 2 0.7% 13 1.2% 15 1.1% 

Brigade 19 6.9% 94 8.5% 113 8.1% 

Division 9 3.3% 27 2.4% 39 2.8% 

Corps 1 .4% 5 .5% 6 .4% 

Garrison 3 1.1% 21 1.9% 24 1.7% 

Installation 2 .7% 15 1.4% 17 1.2% 

HQ Army Command 2 .7% 9 .8% 11 .8% 

HQ Army Service Component 0 0 2 .2% 2 .1% 

27 
28 

Table 12. (continued)

Demographic 

Incumbents 

 (N = 277) 

Supervisors 

 (N = 1,111) 

Total 

(N = 1,390) 

N % N % N % 

HQ Direct Reporting Unit 2 .7% 0 0 2 .1% 

HQ Department of the Army 0 0 5 .5% 5 .4% 

None of the levels listed 4 1.4% 49 4.4% 54 3.8% 

Missing 0 0 1 .1% 1 .1% 

Months Deployed 

None 113 40.8% 72 6.5% 186 13.3% 

6 months or less 19 6.9% 26 2.3% 45 3.2% 

Between 6 and 15 months 98 35.4% 213 19.2% 311 22.3% 

Between 15 and 24 months 30 10.8% 268 24.1% 301 21.6% 

Between 24 and 36 months 17 6.1% 381 34.3% 399 28.6% 

More than 36 months 0 0 151 13.6% 152 10.9% 

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Results 

Basic Descriptive Statistics 

Two statistics describing incumbent and supervisor ratings of the survey items are reported 

in Tables 13 through 17: (a) the mean of the item means, and, (b) the median of the item standard 

deviations (SDs). The mean of the item means (mean of Ms) reflects the average value of the 

responses to items comprising each of the respective questionnaire domains. It is calculated by 

taking the average of each item response, segmented by rater type and MOS, and weighting the 

responses by the number of respondents who completed each item. The median of the item SDs 

represents the 50th percentile. It is computed by taking the median (midpoint) of the range of SDs 

across items. It reflects the variation in responses to each of the domain items, both between MOS 

and within MOS by rater type. The median was selected because the SDs within MOS and rater 

type could be easily influenced by small sample sizes; reporting the mean SD would overweight 

SDs that were aberrantly large and reflect an inflated degree of variation in responses. In addition 

to reporting the results by MOS and rater type, we also report the total sample-weighted means for 

the entire sample and by rater type. We elected to report the mean of the median SDs for the entire 

sample, as the median SDs contributing to the mean value already accounted for any aberrant 

responses or small sample sizes. 

Work-Oriented Descriptor Ratings

The results of the analysis of the work-oriented descriptors (e.g., work activities, work 

context) can be found in Tables 13, 14, and 15. Work activity descriptors were rated on three 

scales: (a) importance, (b) training difficulty, and (c) criticality. Participants completed work 

activity items specific to their MOS. The means for importance ratings ranged from 3.86 to 4.50, 

with the sample-weighted mean rating of 4.09 (SD = 1.09). The means for training difficulty 

ratings ranged from 2.27 to 3.08, while the sample-weighted mean was 2.71 (SD = 1.17). 

Finally, the means of criticality ratings ranged from 3.76 to 4.42, while the sample-weighted 

mean was 4.01 (SD = 1.14). 
Table 13. Descriptive Statistics for Ratings of Work Activities by MOS and Rater Type

MOS/Rater Type N 

Number of 

Statements 

Importance (1-5) 

N 

Trainability (1-5) 

N 

Mean of 

Ms 

Mdn of 

SDs 

Mean of 

Ms 

Mdn of 

SDs 

11B 64-66 64 4.44 .79 64-66 2.72 1.14 64-66 

Incumbents 9 64 4.47 .73 9 2.41 1.01 8-9 

Supervisors 55-57 64 4.44 .81 55-57 2.76 1.14 55-57 

19K 45-48 31 4.17 .99 46-48 2.74 1.12 45-48 

Incumbents 13-14 31 4.50 .77 13-14 2.55 1.27 13-14 Supervisors 31-34 31 4.03 1.00 32-34 2.79 1.06 31-34 

25U 159-161 31 3.96 1.16 159-161 2.80 1.13 159-161 

Incumbents 39-40 31 3.84 1.28 40 2.72 1.14 40 

Supervisors 119-121 31 4.00 1.13 119-121 2.83 1.13 119-121 

31B 104-108 43 3.90 1.16 104-108 2.81 1.12 104-108 

Incumbents 17-18 43 4.11 1.24 18 2.62 1.18 17-18 

Supervisors 85-89 43 3.86 1.14 85-89 2.84 1.10 85-89 

63B 62-63 18 4.11 1.16 62-63 2.41 1.27 61-63 

Incumbents 14 18 4.33 .91 14 2.35 1.23 14 

Supervisors 48-49 18 4.05 1.25 48-49 2.43 1.29 47-49 

88M 91-95 25 4.26 1.13 91-95 2.91 1.27 91-95 

Incumbents 19 25 4.11 1.22 19 2.29 1.23 19 

Supervisors 71-75 25 4.31 1.09 71-75 3.08 1.23 71-75 

Total M 4.09 1.09 2.71 1.17 

Incumbent M 4.08 1.10 2.54 1.18 

Supervisor M 4.09 1.09 2.82 1.16 

29

Note. Ns are reported as ranges because Mean and SD information is derived from individual items. Total M, Incumbent M, and Supervweighted means. 
30

Table 14. Descriptive Statistics for Work Activities Category Ratings by MOS and Rater Type

MOS/Rater Type N 

Number of 

Statements 

Importance (1-5) 

N 

Trainability (1-5) 

N 

Mean of 

Ms 

Mdn of 

SDs 

Mean of 

Ms 

Mdn of 

SDs 

11B 64-66 13 4.46 .68 64-66 2.84 1.17 63-66 

Incumbents 8-9 13 4.48 .73 8-9 2.34 1.00 8-9 Supervisors 55-57 13 4.46 .68 55-57 2.92 1.17 54-57 

19K 47-48 10 4.28 .94 47-48 2.72 1.06 47-48 

Incumbents 13-14 10 4.50 1.02 14 2.36 1.21 14 

Supervisors 34 10 4.19 .98 33-34 2.87 .97 33-34 

25U 154-161 7 4.04 1.05 155-161 2.91 1.09 155-161 

Incumbents 38-40 7 3.92 1.22 39-40 2.94 1.22 39-40 

Supervisors 116-121 7 4.07 .97 116-121 2.91 1.08 116-121 

31B 105-108 8 4.00 1.10 105-108 2.96 1.06 105-108 

Incumbents 18 8 4.26 1.10 18 2.97 1.28 17-18 

Supervisors 86-89 8 3.95 1.09 86-89 2.95 1.04 86-89 

63B 62-63 6 4.21 1.03 62-63 2.53 1.35 62-63 

Incumbents 14 6 4.45 .80 14 2.28 1.34 13-14 

Supervisors 48-49 6 4.14 1.11 48-49 2.60 1.32 48-49 

88M 91-95 6 4.29 1.10 91-95 2.88 1.25 91-95 

Incumbents 17-19 6 4.16 1.28 17-19 2.04 1.11 17-19 

Supervisors 73-75 6 4.33 1.07 73-75 3.09 1.21 73-75 

Total M 4.17 1.01 2.84 1.15 

Incumbent M 4.20 1.09 2.60 1.21 

Supervisor M 4.16 .99 2.91 1.12 

Note. Ns are reported as ranges because Mean and SD information is derived from individual items. Total M, Incumbent M, and Supervweighted means. 
As with the individual work activity descriptors, the work activity categories were also 

MOS-specific and rated on the same three scales. As shown in Table 14, the means of 

importance ratings ranged from 3.92 to 4.50, with the sample-weighted mean being 4.17 (SD = 

1.01). The means of training difficulty ratings ranged from 2.28 to 3.09, while the sampleweighted mean was 2.84 (SD = 1.15). Finally, the means of the criticality ratings ranged from 

3.92 to 4.48, while the sample-weighted mean was 4.17 (SD = 1.03). 

We would not expect the training and either the importance or criticality ratings to be 

systematically correlated and they were not. The lowest correlation among ratings of the 

individual (as opposed to category) work activities was between incumbent criticality and 

training (r = -.03) and the highest correlation was between supervisor criticality and training 

ratings (r = .20). We did expect that the importance and criticality ratings would be highly 

correlated and indeed they were (r = .92 for incumbents and r = .97 for supervisors). 

Table 15. Descriptive Statistics for Work Context Ratings 

MOS/Rater 

Type N 

Number 

of WCs 

Non-Combat 

Ratings (1-5) 

N 

Combat Ratings 

(1-5) 

Mean 

of Ms 

Mdn of 

SDs 

Mean of 

Ms 

Mdn of 

SDs 

11B 74-76 46 2.63 1.35 74-76 3.64 1.19 

Incumbents 13 46 2.93 1.54 12-13 3.88 1.08 

Supervisors 61-63 46 2.57 1.31 60-62 3.59 1.19 

19K 85-87 46 2.68 1.23 86-87 3.62 1.18 

Incumbents 7 46 3.06 1.70 6-7 3.29 1.73 

Supervisors 77-79 46 2.64 1.17 78-79 3.64 1.14 

25U 254-257 46 2.51 1.29 254-257 3.39 1.27 

Incumbents 56 46 2.52 1.39 54-56 3.25 1.33 

Supervisors 196-199 46 2.52 1.24 196-199 3.43 1.25 

31B 106-107 46 2.89 1.28 106-107 3.52 1.25 

Incumbents 18-19 46 2.67 1.35 18-19 2.93 1.51 

Supervisors 87-88 46 2.94 1.24 87-88 3.64 1.15 

63B 73-74 46 2.57 1.32 73-74 3.30 1.28 

Incumbents 9-10 46 2.49 1.45 9-10 3.24 1.38 

Supervisors 64 46 2.58 1.27 64 3.31 1.27 

88M 148-150 46 2.37 1.29 147-150 3.47 1.29 

Incumbents 19-20 46 2.62 1.55 18-20 3.54 1.44 

Supervisors 128-130 46 2.33 1.23 128-130 3.45 1.25 

Total M 2.57 1.30 3.47 1.28 

Incumbent M 2.63 1.44 3.32 1.42 

Supervisor M 2.57 1.27 3.50 1.29 

Note. Ns are reported as ranges because Mean and SD information is derived from individual items. Total M, 

Incumbent M, and Supervisor M are sample-weighted means. 

Work context descriptors were rated on the same scale in two settings: (a) non-combat 

and (b) combat. The means of the non-combat importance ratings ranged from 2.33 to 3.06, with 

the sample-weighted mean being 2.57 (SD = 1.30). The means of the combat ratings ranged from 

2.93 to 3.88, with the sample weighted mean being 3.47 (SD = 1.28). The large difference in 

item ratings between combat and non-combat contexts is notable and consistent with previous 

31 
research. Results of the Army O*NET report (Russell et al., 2008) demonstrated that when 

SMEs rated O*NET work context descriptors, the ratings needed to be made separately for 

deployment and in-garrison activities. These results support the notion that both incumbents and 

supervisors view the work context within their MOS differently based on whether the job duties 

are conducted in combat or non-combat environments. 

Worker-Oriented Descriptor Ratings

 

The results of the analysis of the worker-oriented descriptors (e.g., work abilities, styles, 

values, and interests) can be found in Tables 16 and 17. The means for work abilities ratings 

ranged from 3.25 to 4.17, with the sample-weighted mean being 3.68 (SD = 1.14). The means for 

the work styles ratings ranged from 3.23 to 4.61, while the sample-weighted mean was 3.90 (SD

= 1.04). The means for the work values ratings ranged from 2.75 to 3.78, while the sampleweighted mean was 3.54 (SD = 1.23). The means for the work interests ratings ranged from 3.22 

to 3.74, while the sample-weighted mean was 3.46 (SD = 1.31). 

Table 16. Descriptive Statistics for Work Ability and Work Style Importance Ratings 

MOS/Rater Type 

Work Abilities (1-5) Work Styles (1-5) 

N 

Mean 

of Ms 

Mdn of 

SDs N 

Mean of 

Ms 

Mdn of 

SDs 

11B 62-63 3.83 1.19 55 4.07 1.03 

Incumbents 10 4.17 1.35 8 4.61 .74 

Supervisors 52-53 3.94 1.08 47 3.93 1.03 

19K 56 3.70 .99 48-49 3.90 .95 

Incumbents 6 4.03 1.20 4 4.34 .58 

Supervisors 49 3.69 .98 43-44 3.87 .95 

25U 161-163 3.61 1.15 136 3.90 .99 

Incumbents 40 3.25 1.26 37 3.63 1.16 

Supervisors 121-123 3.47 1.14 99 4.00 .90 

31B 101-103 3.83 1.02 93 3.95 .97 

Incumbents 20 3.96 1.17 16 4.18 .89 

Supervisors 80-82 3.78 1.04 76 3.90 .95 

63B 76 3.66 1.20 66-67 3.73 1.22 

Incumbents 9 3.31 1.64 8 3.23 1.73 

Supervisors 67 3.66 1.12 58-59 3.80 1.11 

88M 96-98 3.57 1.16 83-85 3.88 1.04 

Incumbents 19-20 3.70 1.21 17 3.94 1.06 

Supervisors 75-77 3.54 1.16 65-67 3.89 1.01 

Total M 3.68 1.14 3.90 1.04 

Incumbent M 3.69 1.27 3.87 1.18 

Supervisor M 3.68 1.11 3.99 1.00 

Note. Ns are reported as ranges because Mean and SD information is derived from individual items. 

Total M, Incumbent M, and Supervisor M are sample-weighted means. 

32 
Table 17. Descriptive Statistics for Work Values and Work Interests Importance Ratings 

MOS/Rater Type 

Work Values (1-5) Work Interests (1-5) 

N 

Mean of 

Ms 

Mdn of 

SDs N 

Mean of 

Ms 

Mdn of 

SDs 

11B 49-50 3.61 1.22 56-57 3.37 1.38 

Incumbents 7 3.05 1.50 8 3.22 1.53 

Supervisors 42-43 3.70 1.18 48-49 3.39 1.38 

19K 47 3.66 1.13 52-53 3.44 1.36 

Incumbents 7 3.78 1.38 10 3.74 1.41 

Supervisors 40 3.64 1.09 42-43 3.37 1.33 

25U 168-170 3.52 1.20 183-185 3.52 1.22 

Incumbents 42 3.45 1.27 44-45 3.58 1.25 

Supervisors 126-128 3.54 1.17 138-140 3.50 1.24 

31B 74-75 3.54 1.20 93-94 3.60 1.24 

Incumbents 8 2.75 1.59 13 3.49 1.52 

Supervisors 66-67 3.63 1.12 80-81 3.62 1.17 

63B 43-44 3.52 1.25 52-53 3.30 1.29 

Incumbents 10-11 3.63 1.13 14 3.38 1.24 

Supervisors 32-33 3.48 1.28 38-39 3.27 1.33 

88M 102-104 3.50 1.32 117-119 3.39 1.43 

Incumbents 17-18 3.44 1.49 18 3.51 1.45 

Supervisors 84-86 3.51 1.29 99-101 3.36 1.43 

Total M 3.54 1.23 3.46 1.31 

Incumbent M 3.40 1.36 3.52 1.34 

Supervisor M 3.57 1.20 3.45 1.30 

Note. Ns are reported as ranges because Mean and SD information is derived from individual items. Total M, 

Incumbent M, and Supervisor M are sample-weighted means. 

Were the Jobs Rated Reliably Using the Field Test Questionnaires? 

Two metrics are reported in Tables 18 through 22: (a) the single rater reliability [ICC 

(C,1)], and, (b) the multi-rater reliability [ICC (C,k)]. The single rater reliability index is a 

measure of reliability based on the ANOVA framework; it is computed by assessing the amount 

of variance in ratings within group (e.g., within MOS) in comparison to the amount of variance 

in ratings between groups (e.g., between MOS). The multi-rater reliability index, ICC (C,k) is 

comparable to coefficient alpha and is a measure of consistency of ratings across multiple raters. 

We report the results for ICC (C,1) and ICC (C,k) by MOS and rater type. 

Generally speaking, the single rater reliability provides an estimate of how consistent any 

single rater was with the other raters in the group, on average. Because the single-rater reliability is 

sample-size invariant, it is generally used to make cross-instrument or cross-sample comparisons. In 

contrast, the multi-rater reliability estimate speaks to how reliable or consistent the mean rating 

supplied by that group of raters was (i.e., what is the likelihood that a similar but different group of 

raters from the same population would produce the same mean rating). For most applications, 

including those for which the Army would be using these data (e.g., clustering MOS), the most 

relevant of the two is the multi-rater ICC, because operational decisions are generally based on the 

aggregate judgment of a group (or sample) of raters on which the data were collected. 

33 
Work-Oriented Descriptor Reliability Estimates

The reliability estimates for the work-oriented descriptors are presented in Tables 18 to 

20. For work activities ratings, we estimated single and multi-rater reliability estimates for all 

three types of ratings: (a) importance, (b) training difficulty, and, (c) criticality. For work 

context, we estimated multi-rater reliability estimates for both categories of ratings: (a) noncombat, and (b) combat. In evaluating the multi-rater reliability estimates, we generally focused 

on comparing the estimates in this research to the O*NET target level – a median ICC (C,k) of 

.80 or greater (McCloy, Waugh, & Medsker, 1998). 

Reliability estimates for the work activities categories are presented in Table 18. Across 

all multi-rater reliability estimates, the O*NET rule of thumb of .80 was exceeded (values ranged 

from .85 to .99). In general, there were no systematic differences in reliability estimates between 

MOS across all activities ratings (values ranged from .93 to .98). Additionally, there were no 

systematic differences in multi-rater reliability estimates between rater types across activities 

ratings. While estimates ranged from .85 (19K incumbent importance ratings) to .99 (11B 

incumbent trainability ratings), the majority of values were .95 and above. Compared to the 

results found in the Army O*NET report, we generally found a higher supervisor ICC (C,k) for 

the importance ratings for all four MOS included in both projects (i.e., 19K, 25U, 31B, and 

88M). This is most likely due to the larger number of raters included in the present research 

compared to the Army O*NET study, which included only eight raters for each domain. 

Table 18. ICCs of Work Activities Ratings by MOS and Rater Type

MOS/Rater 

Type N 

Number of 

Statements 

Importance Army O*NET Trainability Criticality 

ICC 

(C,1) 

ICC 

(C,k) 

ICC 

(C,1) 

ICC 

(C,k) 

ICC 

(C,1) 

ICC 

(C,k) 

ICC 

(C,1) 

ICC 

(C,k) 

11B 57-60 64 .32 .97 .45 .98 .37 .97 

Incumbents 8-9 64 .27 .96 .55 .99 .35 .97 

Supervisors 49-51 64 .34 .97 .43 .98 .38 .97 

19K 38-49 31 .38 .95 .43 .96 .48 .97 

Incumbents 13 31 .16 .85 .41 .96 .42 .96 

Supervisors 25-27 31 .42 .96 .58 .89 .46 .96 .50 .97 

25U 152-154 31 .36 .95 .47 .96 .39 .95 

Incumbents 39-40 31 .42 .96 .51 .97 .50 .97 

Supervisors 112-114 31 .33 .94 .41 .86 .45 .96 .34 .94 

31B 98-102 43 .39 .97 .36 .96 .39 .97 

Incumbents 16-18 43 .37 .96 .38 .96 .34 .96 

Supervisors 81-83 43 .40 .97 .57 .92 .35 .96 .41 .97 

63B 58-62 18 .50 .95 .53 .95 .42 .93 

Incumbents 14 18 .39 .92 .55 .96 .35 .91 

Supervisors 44-48 18 .51 .95 .53 .95 .44 .93 

88M 86-87 25 .42 .95 .56 .97 .53 .97 

Incumbents 19 25 .32 .92 .58 .97 .45 .95 

Supervisors 66-67 25 .45 .95 .42 .87 .55 .97 .56 .97 

Note. Ns are reported as ranges because Mean and SD information is reported as average of individual items. MOS 

analyzed in the Army O*NET study were 19K, 25U, 31B, and 88M.

34 
Whereas the multi-rater estimates were higher in the present research, the single-rater 

work activities reliability estimates were generally higher in the Army O*NET study (Russell et 

al., 2008). This is likely attributable to the more intense training the supervisors received. 

Whereas raters in this research were untrained and unproctored, the Army O*NET study used 

proctored rating sessions. The presence of a proctor may have increased rater motivation to 

complete the ratings in a more consistent manner. 

The work activities categories reliability estimates are presented in Table 19. All multirater reliability estimates were above the O*NET rule of thumb with one exception (see 88M 

incumbent ratings of importance). Multi-rater reliability estimates ranged from .71 to .91. In 

general, there were no systematic differences in the reliability estimates by MOS across all 

activities category ratings; these estimates ranged from .84 to .91. For the most part, there were 

no systematic differences in multi-rater reliability estimates between rater types across all 

category ratings (values ranged from .71 to .92). However, supervisors generally rated the 

importance, trainability, and criticality items somewhat more reliably than did incumbents. 

Although not directly comparable to the importance ratings found in the Army O*NET report, 

we found almost identical supervisor multi-rater reliability estimates for the work activity 

category importance ratings for the four MOS examined in both pieces of research. 

Table 19. ICCs of Work Activities Category Ratings by MOS and Rater Type 

MOS/Rater 

Type N 

Number of 

Statements 

Importance Army O*NET Trainability Criticality 

ICC 

(C,1) 

ICC 

(C,k) 

ICC 

(C,1) 

ICC 

(C,k) 

ICC 

(C,1) 

ICC 

(C,k) 

ICC 

(C,1) 

ICC 

(C,k) 

11B 61-63 13 .41 .90 .67 .96 .44 .91 

Incumbents 8 13 .31 .85 .70 .97 .35 .88 

Supervisors 53-55 13 .43 .91 .66 .96 .46 .92 

19K 47 10 .42 .88 .47 .90 .42 .88 

Incumbents 13-14 10 .31 .82 .42 .88 .38 .86 

Supervisors 33-34 10 .45 .89 .58 .89 .47 .90 .46 .89 

25U 152-154 7 .48 .87 .55 .90 .44 .84 

Incumbents 38-39 7 .51 .88 .53 .89 .50 .88 

Supervisors 114-115 7 .46 .86 .41 .86 .57 .90 .41 .83 

31B 101-103 8 .57 .91 .58 .92 .55 .91 

Incumbents 17-18 8 .48 .88 .63 .93 .40 .84 

Supervisors 84-85 8 .59 .92 .57 .92 .57 .92 .59 .92 

63B 59-62 6 .57 .89 .62 .91 .46 .84 

Incumbents 13-14 6 .59 .90 .55 .88 .49 .85 

Supervisors 46-48 6 .57 .89 .64 .91 .46 .84 

88M 87-90 6 .51 .86 .67 .92 .64 .91 

Incumbents 16 6 .29 .71 .82 .97 .50 .86 

Supervisors 70-73 6 .55 .88 .42 .87 .60 .90 .67 .93 

Note. Ns are reported as ranges because Mean and SD information is reported as average of individual items. MOS 

analyzed in the Army O*NET study were 19K, 25U, 31B, and 88M. 

In comparison to the ratings of the work activities, the work activities categories had 

lower multi-rater reliability estimates, but higher single-rater reliability estimates. This is likely 

due to the greater number of items rated in the complete work activities questionnaires—item 

35 
totals were reduced by as much as 80% in creating the work activities categories. Reductions in 

the number of elements included in the analysis influences the multi-rater reliability estimates, 

but does not influence the single-rater reliability estimates. 

The work context reliability estimates are presented in Table 20. All multi-rater reliability 

estimates were above the minimum target of .80. Multi-rater reliability estimates ranged from .88 

to .98. In general, there were no systematic differences in the reliability estimates across MOS 

for both types of context ratings; these estimates ranged from .91 to .96. For the most part, there 

were also no systematic differences in multi-rater reliability estimates between rater types across 

all category ratings. However, incumbents typically rated the items in both combat and noncombat environments somewhat more reliably than did supervisors. 

Table 20. ICCs of Work Context Ratings by MOS and Rater Type 

MOS/Rater 

Type N 

Number of 

Statements 

Non-Combat 

Ratings 

Army 

O*NET Combat Ratings 

ICC (C,1) ICC 

(C,k) 

ICC 

(C,1) 

ICC 

(C,k) 

ICC 

(C,1) 

ICC 

(C,k) 

11B 69-71 46 .30 .95 .18 .91 

Incumbents 12-13 46 .48 .98 .21 .93 

Supervisors 57-58 46 .24 .93 .17 .90 

19K 80-84 46 .17 .91 .19 .92 

Incumbents 6-7 46 .34 .96 .45 .97 

Supervisors 73-76 46 .14 .88 .64 .91 .14 .88 

25U 244-247 46 .25 .94 .30 .95 

Incumbents 54-56 46 .32 .96 .38 .97 

Supervisors 188-189 46 .22 .93 .46 .88 .28 .95 

31B 98-100 46 .27 .94 .33 .96 

Incumbents 17-18 46 .24 .94 .50 .98 

Supervisors 81-82 46 .27 .95 .50 .90 .24 .94 

63B 72-73 46 .23 .93 .28 .95 

Incumbents 8-9 46 .20 .92 .26 .94 

Supervisors 64 46 .23 .93 .29 .95 

88M 137-144 46 .26 .94 .23 .93 

Incumbents 17-19 46 .55 .98 .43 .97 

Supervisors 120-125 46 .18 .91 .36 .84 .19 .92 

Note. Ns are reported as ranges because Mean and SD information is reported as average of individual items. 

Although not directly comparable to the context ratings found in the Army O*NET 

report, we found higher supervisor multi-rater ICCs for work context ratings (both non-combat 

and combat) for three of the MOS; 25U, 31B, and 88M. The ICC (C,k) value for 19K was higher 

than the ICC (C,k) value in the Army O*NET study for both combat and non-combat ratings of 

work context. In contrast to the multi-rater reliability comparison, the ICC (C,1) values were 

higher for both non-combat and combat context ratings in each of the respective MOS in the 

Army O*NET study. The generally higher values for ICC (C,k) in the present research may be 

due to the larger number of raters and descriptors; the Army O*NET project had eight raters per 

MOS, whereas the supervisor sample size for each MOS in this research ranged from 33-115. In 

sum, the separation of work content ratings into combat and non-combat ratings appears to have 

resulted in more reliable ratings in this study in comparison to the Army O*NET study. 

36 
Worker-Oriented Descriptor Reliability Estimates

The reliability estimates for the worker-oriented descriptors are presented in Tables 21 

and 22. For all worker-oriented descriptor reliabilities, we computed single and multi-rater 

reliability estimates for each domain: work abilities, styles, values, and interests. Again, in 

examining the multi-rater reliability estimates, we focus on comparing the estimates to the 

O*NET minimum target level of .80 (McCloy et al., 1998). It was not possible to make 

comparisons between the work styles, values, interests descriptors and those examined in the 

Army O*NET project because ratings on those domains were not collected in that evaluation. 

The work abilities reliability estimates are presented in Table 21. Multi-rater reliability 

estimates ranged from .93 to .98, well above the O*NET standard. In general, there were no 

systematic differences in reliability estimates between MOS across activities categories ratings; 

these estimates ranged from .93 to .97. There were also no systematic differences in multi-rater 

reliability estimates between rater types across abilities ratings. In fact, two MOS (11B and 25U) 

had identical reliability estimates for both incumbent and supervisor ratings. 

Table 21. ICCs of Work Abilities and Styles Ratings by MOS and Rater Type 

MOS/Rater 

Type N 

Number 

of 

Abilities 

Work Abilities Army O*NET 

N 

Number 

of Styles 

Work Styles 

ICC 

(C,1) 

ICC 

(C,k) 

ICC 

(C,k) 

ICC 

(C,k) 

ICC 

(C,1) 

ICC 

(C,k) 

11B 62 30 .32 .93 55 20 .36 .92 

Incumbents 10 30 .31 .93 8 20 .26 .87 

Supervisors 52 30 .32 .93 47 20 .34 .91 

19K 56 30 .35 .94 47 20 .36 .92 

Incumbents 6 30 .43 .96 4 20 .15 .78 

Supervisors 49 30 .34 .94 .26 .67 42 20 .38 .92 

25U 157 30 .38 .95 136 20 .43 .94 

Incumbents 40 30 .41 .95 37 20 .49 .95 

Supervisors 117 30 .37 .95 .20 .69 99 20 .37 .92 

31B 100 30 .41 .95 93 20 .52 .96 

Incumbents 20 30 .44 .96 16 20 .58 .96 

Supervisors 79 30 .40 .95 .43 .87 76 20 .51 .95 

63B 76 30 .50 .97 65 20 .61 .97 

Incumbents 9 30 .63 .98 8 20 .72 .98 

Supervisors 67 30 .47 .96 57 20 .57 .96 

88M 89 30 .48 .97 82 20 .43 .94 

Incumbents 19 30 .62 .98 17 20 .70 .98 

Supervisors 69 30 .44 .96 .26 .76 64 20 .34 .91 

We generally found much higher multi-rater ICC estimates for worker abilities in this 

research than in the Army O*NET evaluation for all MOS common to both projects except for 

31B. With the exception of 31B, the ICC (C,1) values were also generally higher for ability 

ratings in each of the respective MOS in this study. Although it appears that the participants in 

the present research made more reliable ratings of the abilities items, it is important to remember 

the large differences in sample size between this effort and the Army O*NET study. 

37 
The work styles reliability estimates are also presented in Table 21. In general, all multirater reliability estimates were above the O*NET standard (see the 19K incumbent ratings for an 

exception). Multi-rater reliability estimates ranged from .78 to .98. There were no systematic 

differences in reliability estimates between MOS. In contrast, there were some differences in 

multi-rater reliability estimates between rater types. For instance, 11B and 19K supervisors rated 

styles somewhat more reliably than did incumbents in these MOS. 

The work values reliability estimates are presented in Table 22. In general, all multi-rater 

reliability estimates were sufficiently high, ranging from .92 to .97. There were no systematic 

differences in reliability estimates between MOS across ratings, which ranged from .94 to .97. 

Likewise, there were no systematic differences between multi-rater reliability estimates between 

rater types across these ratings. 

The work interests reliability estimates presented in Table 22 range from .94 to .97. There 

were no systematic differences in reliability estimates between MOS or rater types. 

Table 22. ICCs of Work Values and Interests Ratings by MOS and Rater Type

MOS/Rater 

Type N 

Number of 

Values 

Work Values 

N 

Number of 

Interests 

Work Interests 

ICC 

(C,1) 

ICC 

(C,k) 

ICC 

(C,1) 

ICC 

(C,k) 

11B 48 30 .38 .95 56 30 .42 .96 

Incumbents 7 30 .40 .95 8 30 .46 .96 

Supervisors 41 30 .36 .94 48 30 .41 .95 

19K 47 30 .36 .94 52 30 .37 .95 

Incumbents 7 30 .45 .96 10 30 .35 .94 

Supervisors 40 30 .35 .94 42 30 .37 .95 

25U 168 30 .29 .93 180 30 .35 .94 

Incumbents 42 30 .36 .94 44 30 .39 .95 

Supervisors 126 30 .27 .92 136 30 .34 .94 

31B 74 30 .46 .96 93 30 .44 .96 

Incumbents 8 30 .47 .96 13 30 .54 .97 

Supervisors 66 30 .43 .96 80 30 .43 .96 

63B 42 30 .38 .95 52 30 .41 .95 

Incumbents 10 30 .31 .93 14 30 .34 .94 

Supervisors 32 30 .40 .95 38 30 .44 .96 

88M 100 30 .49 .97 113 30 .51 .97 

Incumbents 17 30 .40 .95 18 30 .50 .97 

Supervisors 83 30 .52 .97 95 30 .52 .97 

38 
Summary of the Inter-Rater Reliability Analyses

In general, we found that both the work-oriented and worker-oriented descriptors were 

rated reliably by both incumbents and supervisors both within and across MOS. Very few 

descriptors demonstrated ICC (C,k) values less than the O*NET .80 standard (McCloy et al., 

1998). However, the ICC (C,1) values were not quite as high as the values observed in the Army 

O*NET Evaluation. The single-rater reliability differences were most likely due to rater training 

and proctoring in the Army O*NET study, but absent in the present research. The general pattern 

was that the worker-oriented domain descriptors were rated slightly more reliably than the workoriented domain descriptors. 

Did Incumbents and Supervisors Agree in their Ratings? 

Three statistics are reported in the Tables 23 to 26: (a) profile similarity (r) in item 

ratings, (b) mean of the standardized mean item differences (or d), and (c) the average absolute d

(or |d|) on the items. The profile similarity (r) reflects the agreement between incumbent and 

supervisor ratings within each domain, and was computed by taking the average correlation 

between the raters’ ratings of descriptors within each domain. Higher values of r indicate a 

higher degree of similarity in the shape of the profiles between incumbent and supervisor ratings 

of the items in each domain. The mean of the standardized mean item differences (or d) 

represents the difference in magnitude between incumbent and supervisor ratings of the items 

comprising a domain. The standardized mean differences were computed by calculating the 

difference between the mean incumbent and supervisor ratings of each item within each domain, 

standardizing the difference (i.e., dividing the difference by the pooled standard deviation of 

each item), and taking the average difference across items within the domain. Positive values 

mean that the average ratings made by supervisors were higher than those made by incumbents. 

Large values, positive or negative, indicate less agreement in the mean ratings of incumbents and 

supervisors. Finally, we calculated the average absolute d. This value was calculated by taking 

the absolute difference between the mean incumbent and supervisor ratings of each item within 

each domain. By taking the absolute value of d, we were able to examine the pure difference 

between the incumbent and supervisor ratings within each MOS and each domain without 

concern of directionality and its influence on the mean difference calculation. 

Work-Oriented Descriptor Similarities and Mean Rater Differences

The work-oriented similarities and mean rater differences are reported in Tables 23 to 25. 

Table 23 reports the profile similarity and mean rater differences for the work activities domain 

by scale, broken out by MOS and rater type. The similarity indices ranged from .33 to .88 for all 

three types of activity ratings. Incumbents and supervisors tended to agree on the trainability (r = 

.82) of the activities comprising the domain to a greater extent than they did on importance and 

criticality, but the mean ratings of importance and criticality also reflected a high degree of 

similarity (r = .73 for both importance and criticality). Across MOS, there were some differences 

in profile similarities for importance, trainability, and criticality. In particular, the similarity 

index for 25U was far lower than the other MOS for ratings of importance and criticality, but the 

index for the trainability ratings was in line with the other MOS. 

39 
Table 23. Profile Similarity and Mean Differences in Activities Ratings between Incumbents 

and Supervisors 

Domain/MOS r

Mean Differences 

Mean of d 

Average 

Absolute d

Work Activities (Importance) .73 -.11 .27 

11B .82 -.05 .20 

19K .78 -.50 .51 

25U .33 .14 .27 

31B .81 -.23 .25 

63B .76 -.24 .26 

88M .78 .18 .22 

Work Activities (Trainability) .82 .26 .30 

11B .87 .32 .32 

19K .75 .20 .31 

25U .79 .10 .15 

31B .85 .20 .22 

63B .77 .05 .19 

88M .81 .64 .65 

Work Activities (Criticality) .73 -.06 .25 

11B .83 -.08 .22 

19K .77 -.32 .34 

25U .43 .17 .27 

31B .74 -.18 .25 

63B .76 -.06 .18 

88M .78 .25 .29 

Note. Positive ds indicate that the average ratings made by supervisors were higher than those made by incumbents. 

The standardized mean differences between incumbent and supervisor ratings of 

activities, represented by mean ds, ranged between -.50 to .64 across the three types of activities 

ratings. The mean d for importance and criticality ratings indicated that incumbents generally 

made slightly higher ratings (-.11 and -.06, respectively) relative to supervisors. In contrast, the 

mean d for trainability ratings indicated that supervisors generally rated items as more difficult to 

learn than did incumbents (.26). 

In comparing MOS-specific values to the sample-weighted mean d for each type of 

activity rating, divergence from the mean d exists for some MOS. For importance ratings, the d 

value for 19K indicated that the incumbents generally rated the activities as more important than 

the supervisors rated these same activities (-.50). However, this difference is markedly larger 

than the sample-weighted mean d for importance ratings (d = -.11). For trainability ratings, 63B 

and 88M diverged from the mean d. While the d value for 63B indicated that incumbents and 

supervisors were more in agreement (e.g., .05 compared to .26) on their ratings of trainability 

than the average across MOS, 88M indicated a far greater difference (e.g., .64 compared to .26) 

between incumbent and supervisor ratings of trainability. Finally, for criticality ratings, 19K and 

88M diverged from the mean d. The supervisors and incumbents in 19K differed to a larger 

extent on level of criticality than the sample-weighted mean d, with incumbents in 19K tending 

to rate the activities as more critical (just as they had rated them as more important) than the 

supervisors. In contrast, although the supervisors and incumbents in 88M also reflected a high 

degree of similarity on ratings of criticality, supervisors in 88M tended to make higher ratings of 

trainability than did incumbents. It should be noted that across MOS, supervisors consistently 

40 
rated the activities comprising the domain as more difficult to train. This type of pattern did not 

occur for ratings of importance or criticality. 

The absolute mean differences (|d|) between incumbent and supervisor ratings of 

activities across MOS ranged from .18 to .65. The average absolute ds were .27, .30, and .25, 

respectively, for ratings of importance, trainability, and criticality. Despite the fact that 

supervisors may have rated the activities as more important, trainable, or difficult than the 

incumbents (or the converse), the absolute values of these differences were not typically very 

large. 

There was some divergence across MOS. For instance, raters in 19K generally differed to 

a larger extent on the level of importance of activities than the other MOS. Likewise, raters in 

88M differed in their ratings of level of trainability of activities to a larger extent than the other 

MOS. 

Table 24 reports the profile similarity and mean differences for the work activities 

categories by MOS and rater type. The similarity indices, represented by correlations, ranged 

between -.29 and .93 across all three ratings. Incumbents and supervisors tended to agree to a 

greater extent on the trainability (r = .68) of the activities categories than they did on the 

importance and criticality (r = .53 and r = .55, respectively), but the mean ratings of importance 

and criticality also reflected a moderate degree of similarity. Across MOS, there were some large 

differences in profile similarities for importance, trainability, and criticality. For instance, the 

correlations between incumbent and supervisor ratings of importance for 11B (r = .92) and 88M 

(r = .85) were much larger than the sample-weighted mean correlation for importance ratings 

across MOS, whereas the correlation for importance ratings for 63B was much smaller (r = .13). 

Similarly, the correlations for trainability (r =.05) and criticality (r = -.29) ratings were much 

lower for 63B than the sample-weighted mean d. It is important to note that despite the lack of a 

large mean difference (d = -.20) in the average criticality ratings for 63B, the rank orders of the 

items by incumbents and supervisors directly contributed to the negative correlation. In contrast, 

the correlations between incumbent-supervisor criticality ratings for 11B (r = .93) and 88M (r = 

.91) were much larger than the sample-weighted mean similarity index. 

The standardized mean differences, represented by mean ds, ranged between -.32 to .90. 

The mean d for importance ratings indicated that incumbents generally made slightly higher 

ratings (-.12), as did the mean d for criticality ratings (-.08). In contrast, supervisors generally 

rated items as more difficult to train than did incumbents (mean d = .36). 

For importance ratings, the d value for 19K indicated that the incumbents generally rated 

the activities comprising the domain as more important than the supervisors rated these same 

activities (-.32). For trainability ratings, 88M diverged from the mean d such that there was a 

greater difference (i.e., .90 compared to .36) between incumbent and supervisor ratings of 

trainability than the sample-weighted mean d. It is important to note that despite the high degree 

of similarity between incumbent and supervisor trainability ratings (r = .79), there was still a 

large difference in magnitude between the incumbent and supervisor average ratings. 

41 
Table 24. Profile Similarity and Mean Differences in Work Activities Categories Ratings 

between Incumbents and Supervisors 

Domain/MOS r

Mean Differences 

Mean of d Average Absolute d

Work Activities-Categories (Importance) .53 -.12 .25 

11B .92 -.05 .16 

19K .47 -.32 .38 

25U .78 .15 .19 

31B .37 -.28 .28 

63B .13 -.29 .30 

88M .85 .15 .18 

Work Activities-Categories (Trainability) .68 .36 .40 

11B .73 .50 .50 

19K .71 .51 .51 

25U .81 -.02 .11 

31B .82 -.02 .08 

63B .05 .25 .29 

88M .79 .90 .90 

Work Activities-Categories (Criticality) .55 -.08 .27 

11B .93 -.13 .23 

19K .27 -.24 .36 

25U .79 .15 .20 

31B .42 -.20 .20 

63B -.29 -.20 .33 

88M .91 .34 .34

Note. Positive ds indicate that the average ratings made by supervisors were higher than those made by incumbents. 

The absolute mean differences (|d|) between incumbent and supervisor ratings of 

activities categories across MOS ranged from .08 to .90. The average absolute ds were .25, .40, 

and .27, respectively, for the importance, trainability, and criticality ratings. There was some 

divergence across MOS. For instance, raters in 88M generally differed to a larger extent on the 

perceived levels of activity category trainability than the sample-weighted mean |d|. However, 

within the other activities categories ratings, there were more uniform absolute differences in the 

ratings of incumbents and supervisors. The absolute differences in the ratings of trainability for 

the activities categories were the largest of the three scales. 

Table 25 reports the profile similarity and mean differences for the work context ratings 

by MOS, rater type, and environment. The similarity indices ranged from .58 to .95 for both 

types of context ratings (combat vs. non-combat). Incumbents and supervisors tended to agree to 

a greater extent on the work context ratings in combat environments (r = .86) than they did on 

the work context ratings in non-combat environments (r = .78), but the ratings for both types of 

environments reflect a high degree of similarity. Across MOS, there were very few differences 

between the profile similarities for context ratings, especially within the ratings of work context 

in combat environments (i.e., the correlations ranged from .80 to .92, indicating that supervisors 

and incumbents tend to view the context of the work in a similar fashion in combat 

environments). However, the correlations between incumbent and supervisor ratings of context 

in non-combat for 19K (r = .58) and 63B (r = .68) were somewhat lower than the sampleweighted mean correlation across MOS (r = .78). Nevertheless, both of these values reflect at 

least moderate levels of similarity between ratings of the work context in non-combat 

environments by supervisors and incumbents. 

42 
The standardized mean differences (mean ds), ranged between -.36 to .61. They show that 

incumbents generally made slightly higher non-combat environment ratings (-.10), but that 

supervisor ratings in combat environments (.15) were slightly higher than ratings made by 

incumbents. 

There were few differences between the MOS-specific ds and the sample-weighted mean 

d for the context ratings in non-combat environments. Similar to the work activities ratings, the 

directionality of differences (i.e., whether supervisors’ or incumbents’ ratings were higher) 

varied across MOS. However, the range of differences between supervisor and incumbent ratings 

was generally small in non-combat environments. Similarly, the differences between supervisor 

and incumbent ratings of context in combat environments were relatively uniform in magnitude 

but differed in directionality. The exception to this pattern was 31B in which supervisors rated 

the work context items as being more important in a combat environment than incumbents. 

The absolute mean differences (|d|) between incumbent and supervisor ratings of work 

context in both combat and non-combat environments across MOS ranged from .17 to .61. The 

average absolute ds were .32 and .34, respectively, for ratings of work context in both types of 

environment. There was relatively little divergence across MOS, although the |d| for incumbent 

and supervisor ratings in 19K was somewhat higher than the sample-weighted mean |d|. In 

contrast to the relatively small degree of variation on |d| in non-combat ratings, combat 

environment context ratings demonstrated a larger degree of variation across MOS. For instance, 

raters in 31B differed to a larger extent on the degree to which the work context items were 

characteristic in a combat environment to a much greater degree than the sample-weighted mean 

|d|. In contrast, the average context ratings in non-combat environments of supervisors and 

incumbents in 25U reflected a smaller degree of difference than the sample-weighted mean |d|. 

Table 25. Profile Similarity and Mean Differences in Work Context Ratings between 

Incumbents and Supervisors 

Domain/MOS r

Mean Differences 

Mean of d Average Absolute d

Work Context (Non-Combat) .78 -.10 .32 

11B .80 -.28 .35 

19K .58 -.36 .56 

25U .95 .02 .17 

31B .88 .22 .27 

63B .68 .06 .30 

88M .80 -.24 .31 

Work Context (Combat) .86 .15 .34 

11B .89 -.21 .34 

19K .80 .34 .46 

25U .92 .15 .19 

31B .84 .61 .61 

63B .82 .05 .26 

88M .89 -.06 .20 

Note. Positive ds indicate that the average ratings made by supervisors were higher than those 

made by incumbents. 

43 
Worker-Oriented Descriptor Similarities and Mean Rater Differences

Table 26 reports the profile similarity and mean differences for the worker-oriented domains. 

The similarity indices ranged from .23 to .93 across all domains. Incumbents and supervisors tended 

to agree to a greater extent on the ratings of interests (r =.86) than on the ratings of abilities, styles, 

and values (r = .76, r = .61, and r = .70, respectively), but the correlations for abilities, styles, and 

values all reflected a large degree of similarity between incumbent and supervisor ratings. Across 

worker-oriented domains and MOS, there were some differences in profile similarity indices in 

comparison to the sample-weighted mean ds. For instance, the correlation between incumbent and 

supervisor ratings of abilities for 11B (r = .51) was somewhat lower than the sample-weighted mean 

correlation for importance ratings across MOS. Similarly, the correlation for styles ratings for 63B (r

= .23) was much smaller than the sample-weighted mean correlation. The correlations for values and 

interests were relatively uniform (and high) across MOS. In general, the profile similarity indices for 

worker-oriented domains were high across MOS. 

Table 26. Profile Similarity and Mean Differences in Work Abilities, Styles, Values and 

Interests Ratings between Incumbents and Supervisors 

 

Domain/MOS r

Mean Differences 

Mean of d Average Absolute d

Abilities .76 -.07 .29 

11B .73 -.23 .35 

19K .51 -.36 .48 

25U .95 .18 .20 

31B .86 -.18 .25 

63B .70 .30 .34 

88M .79 -.13 .19 

Styles .61 -.10 .42 

11B .76 -.62 .62 

19K .67 -.51 .68 

25U .81 .36 .39 

31B .53 -.29 .33 

63B .23 .48 .51 

88M .68 -.04 .17 

Values .70 .19 .34 

11B .76 .55 .55 

19K .66 -.13 .29 

25U .68 .08 .22 

31B .69 .74 .74 

63B .78 -.13 .20 

88M .61 .06 .23 

Interests .86 -.05 .24 

11B .86 .16 .30 

19K .86 -.29 .34 

25U .93 -.08 .15 

31B .85 .11 .27 

63B .88 -.09 .20 

88M .80 -.10 .24 

Note. Positive ds indicate that the average ratings made by supervisors were higher 

than those made by incumbents. 

44 
The standardized mean differences ranged between -.62 to .74. The mean ds for abilities, 

styles, and interests indicated that incumbents generally made slightly higher ratings (-.07, -.10, 

and -.05, respectively) than supervisors; however, the mean d for values ratings indicated that 

supervisors generally made slightly higher ratings (.19) than incumbents. 

In comparing MOS-specific values to the sample-weighted mean d for each type of workeroriented domain, some divergence from the mean d shows up across MOS within each domain. For 

abilities ratings, the d values for 19K (d = -.36) and 63B (d = .30) indicated a greater difference from 

the sample-weighted mean than did the other MOS. Although the directionality of these two d values 

differs, indicating that supervisors in 63B rated the abilities items more highly than did incumbents 

while incumbents in 19K rated the abilities items more highly, the magnitude of both differences is 

comparable and fairly large in comparison to the sample-weighted mean d for abilities ratings. For 

styles ratings, both 11B and 19K demonstrate d values in the same direction as the sample-weighted 

mean d, indicating that incumbents rated the work styles items more highly than did the supervisors 

in these MOS; however, both values (d = -.62, and d = -.51, respectively) are much larger than the 

sample-weighted mean d for styles (d = -.10). For values ratings, supervisors in 11B and in 31B both 

rated the values items more highly than did the incumbents, which is in line with the sampleweighted mean d for values. However, the d values in these MOS (d = .55, and d = .74, respectively) 

are much larger than the sample-weighted mean d (.19). 

The absolute mean differences (|d|) between incumbent and supervisor ratings of workeroriented domains across MOS ranged from .15 to .74. The average absolute ds were .29, .42, .34, 

and .24 for abilities, styles, values, and interests, respectively. In comparing MOS-specific values 

to the sample-weighted mean |d| for each domain, there was some divergence across MOS. 

Raters in 19K (.48) generally differed to a larger extent on the ratings of abilities than the 

sample-weighted mean |d| for abilities (.29). Similarly, 11B (.62) and 19K (.68) exhibited much 

larger differences between the supervisor and incumbent ratings of styles than the sampleweighted mean |d| (.42) exhibited. Finally, 11B (.55) and 31B (.74) also differed more on 

supervisor and incumbent ratings of values than the sample-weighted |d| (.34) indicated. 

Despite these larger than expected absolute differences, it is important to note that for a 

number of these MOS, the similarity indices were quite high. The high degree of similarity and 

the moderate degrees of difference for 11B and 19K ratings of styles, and for 11B and 31B 

ratings of values, are not mutually exclusive. For these MOS, the average means of the 

supervisor and incumbent ratings of items were different, but they reflected a similar rank 

ordering by item across rater type. 

Summary of Incumbent-Supervisor Agreement in Ratings

Within the work-oriented descriptors, supervisor and incumbent ratings of activities and 

activities categories descriptors generally demonstrated a high degree of similarity; however, 

activities categories correlations were somewhat lower than the correlations for the full set of 

work activities items. In general, incumbent ratings were higher than supervisors for ratings of 

importance and criticality, while trainability ratings were higher for supervisors across activities 

and activities categories. Absolute standardized mean differences were generally low across all 

three types of ratings for work activities and categories, indicating a low level of difference 

between the mean ratings across the items comprising both scales. 

45 
Also within the work-oriented descriptors domain, the work context supervisor and 

incumbent ratings generally indicated that the similarity indices were high for both work context 

descriptors in a non-combat environment and in a combat environment; however, the similarity 

indices were higher for the combat environment ratings. In non-combat environments, 

incumbents made higher ratings on average than supervisors; however, in combat environments, 

supervisor ratings were higher. Neither of these differences was large and was supported by the 

relatively small differences evident in the absolute standardized mean differences. 

Within the worker-oriented descriptors, the similarity indices were higher than those for 

the work-oriented descriptors, with the values indices being the highest of the four domains. For 

abilities, styles, and interests, the incumbents generally rated the descriptors more highly than did 

incumbents; supervisors generally made higher ratings than incumbents for values. The absolute 

standardized mean differences for the worker-oriented descriptors were generally in line with the 

work-oriented descriptor differences. 

In summary, we found relatively high degrees of similarities and small differences 

between incumbent and supervisor ratings for both work-oriented and worker-oriented domains 

both within and across MOS. 

Did Ratings from the Questionnaires Differentiate among MOS? 

Consistent with the Army O*NET Evaluation, we used a multi-trait multi-method 

approach (Campbell & Fiske, 1959) to answer this question. The profile similarities and mean 

differences among MOS are presented in Tables 27 and 28. The numbers below the diagonal are 

cross-MOS correlations in the profile of ratings on the targeted domain (e.g., how did the ability 

ratings for 11B correlate with those of 19K? Or 31B? Or 63B?). The numbers above the diagonal 

reflect the average absolute mean standardized difference (or d) in the ratings between MOS A 

versus those of MOS B (i.e., how much did the ability ratings for 11B differ from those of 19K, 

on average, in standard deviation?). 

The numbers on the diagonal correspond to the two aforementioned metrics but capture 

that information within an MOS, specifically between the two rater types (incumbents versus 

supervisors). The number before the "/" represents the correlation between the incumbents' and 

supervisors' ratings on the domain in question for the selected MOS, whereas the number after 

the "/" reflects the average absolute mean standardized difference (or d) between the incumbent 

and supervisor ratings for the same MOS. 

Consistent with a multi-trait multi-method framework, high profile similarities (or low 

mean differences) among different rater types for the same MOS would indicate convergent 

validity. That is, different methods (i.e., rater types) yield converging results for the same MOS. 

If these convergent validity estimates are higher than the corresponding estimates between 

different MOS, there is evidence of discriminant or divergent validity. Divergent validity would 

indicate that the descriptors are differentiating across MOS. In sum, it would be desirable if (a) 

the differences in the ratings between the two rater types within an MOS were smaller and their 

similarity higher than the ratings across different MOS and (b) the pattern of similarity and 

46 
differences in the ratings across different MOS followed the pattern one would expect. As an 

example of the latter, those MOS that are more similar to each other in their job requirements, 

say 11B and 19K, would show greater similarity and smaller differences in their ratings than 

those MOS that were more dissimilar, say 11B and 25U. 

MOS Differentiation with Work-Oriented Descriptors 

Table 27 presents the similarity and mean differences in work context ratings in non-combat 

environments among the MOS. The results for the work context ratings in non-combat environments 

generally reflected correlations between MOS that were comparable to the correlations within MOS 

across rater types. For context ratings in non-combat environments, the within MOS average 

correlation was .78, while the between MOS average correlation was .66. Similarly, for combat 

environment ratings, the average correlation within MOS was .86, while the between MOS 

correlation was .77 (see Table 27). For some MOS combinations, however, the correlations between 

the MOS were greater than the correlations between incumbent and supervisor ratings within the 

MOS. For instance, the similarities for work context ratings in a non-combat environment between 

11B, 19K, 63B, and 88M were stronger than the within-MOS correlations between raters in these 

MOS. Likewise, the difference scores between similar MOS (e.g., 11B and 19K) were generally 

smaller than the difference scores between incumbent and supervisor ratings within both of these 

MOS. Similarly, the relationship between 63B and 88M resulted in a smaller difference score than 

the difference score for incumbent and supervisor ratings within both of these MOS. Finally, 

dissimilar MOS demonstrated small similarity indices in non-combat environments (e.g., the 

correlations between 19K and 31B and between 25U and 31B were small). 

Table 27. Profile Similarity and Mean Differences in Work Context Ratings among MOS 

 11B 19K 25U 31B 63B 88M 

Work Context –Non-Combat 

11B .80/.35 .20 .37 .35 .25 .26 

19K .86 .58/.56 .42 .45 .21 .27 

25U .57 .55 .95/.17 .49 .27 .29 

31B .53 .40 .45 .88/.27 .43 .48 

63B .75 .87 .72 .39 .68/.30 .20 

88M .83 .88 .72 .49 .88 .80/.31 

Work Context –Combat 

11B .89/.34 .15 .51 .25 .43 .26 

19K .96 .80/.46 .50 .26 .40 .22 

25U .52 .50 .92/.19 .40 .21 .35 

31B .93 .89 .45 .84/.61 .32 .22 

63B .78 .79 .81 .71 .82/.26 .23 

88M .91 .92 .65 .86 .89 .89/.20 

Table 27 also presents the similarity indices and mean differences in work context ratings 

in combat environments. The results for the work context ratings in combat environments 

generally reflected correlations between MOS that were comparable to the correlations within 

MOS across rater types. For some MOS combinations, however, the correlations between the 

MOS were far greater than the correlations between incumbent and supervisor ratings within 

multiple MOS. For instance, the similarities for work context ratings in a combat environment 

between 11B and 19K, 11B, 31B, 11B and 88M, were generally stronger than the within-MOS 

47 
correlations between raters for these MOS. Likewise, the difference scores between similar MOS 

(e.g., 11B and 19K) were generally smaller than the difference scores between incumbent and 

supervisor ratings within both of these MOS. However, the correlations among and between 

dissimilar MOS in combat environments were far greater than those in non-combat environments 

(e.g., the correlation between 19K and 31B goes from .40 to .89 when the context items are rated 

in a combat environment). The similarity indices indicate that the introduction of the combat 

environment decreases the degree of discriminant validity across MOS. 

Table 28 provides a high level summary of the data presented in Table 27. Overall, 

supervisors and incumbents rated the work context of their MOS similarly, on average, across both 

non-combat and combat based environments. As expected, the work context ratings in a combat 

environment were more similar across MOS than those context ratings in a non-combat environment. 

Table 28. Average Profile Similarity and Mean Difference Statistics for the Work-Oriented 

Descriptors 

Work Activities Work Activities Categories Work Context 

Importance Training Criticality Importance Training Criticality 

NonCombat Combat 

Correlations 

By MOS -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.66 0.77 

By Rater 

Type 0.73 0.82 0.73 0.53 0.68 0.55 0.78 0.86 

Mean Differences 

By MOS -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.20 0.18 

By Rater 

Type 0.31 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.40 0.28 0.33 0.34 

Note. Cross-MOS work activity ratings were not collected. Accordingly, information on the correlations and mean 

differences in work activity ratings could not be computed. 

MOS Differentiation among Worker-Oriented Descriptors 

Table 29 presents the similarity and mean differences in worker-related characteristics 

ratings among the MOS. The correlations between the MOS for all worker-related characteristics 

were generally smaller than the within MOS ratings, except in the case of work values. For work 

values, the sample-weighted mean correlation was .79 while the average within MOS correlation 

was only .70. In contrast, but consistent with the correlations, abilities and interests produced 

larger differences between MOS than within MOS (see Table 30). 

Summary of MOS Differentiation Analyses

The results of the differentiation analyses showed that the descriptors hold promise for 

differentiating across MOS. For the work-oriented descriptors (i.e., work context), the profile 

similarities across MOS were lower, on average, than the similarities within MOS. Among the 

worker-oriented descriptors, this same pattern held for work abilities and work interests. For 

work styles and values, however, the profile similarities across MOS were comparable to or 

somewhat lower than the profile similarities within an MOS. 

48 
Table 29. Profile Similarity and Mean Differences in Worker-Related Characteristics Ratings 

among MOS by Domain 

11B 19K 25U 31B 63B 88M 

Work Abilities 

11B .73/.35 .31 .62 .33 .38 .41 

19K .75 .51/.48 .46 .22 .20 .19 

25U -.06 .27 .95/.20 .37 .32 .35 

31B .46 .66 .70 .86/.25 .27 .26 

63B .40 .59 .62 .58 .70/.34 .16 

88M .50 .86 .49 .82 .64 .79/.19 

Work Styles 

11B .76/.62 .21 .27 .28 .34 .26 

19K .88 .67/.68 .20 .17 .20 .14 

25U .53 .64 .81/.39 .20 .18 .23 

31B .54 .65 .54 .53/.33 .24 .20 

63B .63 .73 .79 .43 .23/.51 .21 

88M .72 .82 .49 .63 .65 .68/.17

Work Values 

11B .76/.55 .12 .21 .23 .18 .15 

19K .93 .66/.29 .23 .23 .18 .17 

25U .75 .77 .68/.22 .18 .14 .16 

31B .70 .79 .73 .69/.74 .21 .19 

63B .83 .84 .83 .62 .78/.20 .12 

88M .94 .92 .72 .72 .82 .61/.23 

Work Interests 

11B .86/.30 .16 .55 .40 .32 .20 

19K .95 .86/.34 .46 .38 .24 .16 

25U .35 .48 .93/.15 .46 .36 .39 

31B .68 .66 .34 .85/.27 .49 .39 

63B .75 .86 .68 .42 .88/.20 .15 

88M .89 .93 .48 .61 .90 .80/.24 

Table 30. Average Profile Similarity and Mean Difference Statistics for the Worker-Oriented 

Descriptors 

Work Abilities Work Styles Work Values Work Interests 

Correlations 

By MOS 0.55 0.64 0.79 0.67 

By Rater Type 0.76 0.61 0.70 0.86 

Mean Differences 

By MOS 0.32 0.22 0.18 0.34 

By Rater Type 0.30 0.45 0.37 0.25 

The results were less supportive on this point when examining cross-MOS mean 

differences in ratings. In part, these results may be a reflection of the content of the 

questionnaires. Each questionnaire may contain a number of items that were not particularly 

useful for differentiating across MOS, or this particular sample of MOS. Those items would in 

turn lower the overall mean differences in the ratings reported for any given questionnaire. 

49 
50 

Did Participants React Favorably to the Questionnaires? 

Participants were asked to rate each descriptor domain on the following: ease of use, 

instructions, clarity of statements, relevance of questions to MOS, and usefulness for describing 

MOS requirements. Results from the reaction questionnaires can be found in Tables 31 and 32. 

These tables include: (a) the mean response for each MOS per item, (b) the SD for each MOS per 

item, and (c) the percent of responses that rated each item a 4 or 5 (defined here as “good”). We 

also calculated the sample-weighted mean and standard deviations for each domain across all 

MOS in order to identify any MOS that exhibited deviations from the general pattern of 

responses to the reaction items. 

The work activities items were generally viewed as easy to use, clear, relevant, and 

useful. This is a positive sign for the work activities items, as these items were written 

specifically for each MOS. The work context ratings were generally high as well. Within the 

work context domain, the lowest ratings were typically assigned to the question, “Usefulness for 

describing the requirements of your MOS” (activities M = 4.05; context M = 3.72). The mean for 

the work context item regarding usefulness is the lowest sample-weighted mean for any domain 

on this item. It is also the lowest sample-weighted mean for any of the reaction questions. 

Similarly, the sample-weighted mean for the question, “Relevance of questions to your MOS” in 

the work context domain was also smaller than for most other domains. Therefore, it appears that 

there was less satisfaction overall with respect to the items comprising the work context 

domains; however, these means are still high (i.e., each mean for the work context reaction 

questions is over 3.50). 

Within the worker-oriented domains (work abilities, styles, interests, and values), the 

ratings of work styles were generally the highest. However, across all four domains, the reaction 

ratings were typically high (i.e., greater than 4.00). The sample-weighted means for the reactions 

to the interest items were slightly lower than the other domains. For work abilities and styles, 

63B generally reported lower means than the other MOS. This was not the case for work 

interests and values. 

Reactions to work abilities, styles, values, and interests were generally more similar 

across MOS than were reactions to the work activities and context reactions as indicated by the 

lower SDs for worker-oriented descriptors. In contrast, the percentage of respondents rating the 

work-oriented domain items as “good” was generally higher than the percentage of respondents 

rating the worker-oriented domain items as “good.” 

Overall, participants rated the questionnaires favorably, irrespective of the domain, their 

MOS, or their rank. Mean responses to all reaction measures items were generally positive, and 

the majority of all participants within any MOS completing the questionnaire rated the items as 

“good.” In comparative terms, the worker-oriented questionnaires received less favorable ratings, 

on average, than the work-oriented questionnaires. Similarly, the worker-oriented questionnaires 

had a lower percentage of respondents rating the questionnaires on the different reaction 

dimensions as “good.” However, participant reactions were still generally positive in absolute 

terms, with a majority of the participants rating each of the questionnaires as “good.” 
Table 31. Respondent Reactions to Work-Oriented Questionnaires 

Ease of Use (1-5) Instructions (1-5) Clarity (1-5) Relevance to MOS (1-5) 

Domain/MOS N M SD % Good M SD % Good M SD % Good M SD % Good 

Work Activities 

11B 66 4.09 .89 80.6% 4.03 .88 83.6% 4.06 0.89 83.6% 4.44 .79 88.1% 19K 47-48 4.10 .81 81.6% 4.25 .79 87.7% 4.21 0.81 83.7% 4.31 .90 79.6% 

25U 158-161 4.04 .81 82.8% 4.11 .76 85.3% 3.99 0.86 78.5% 4.29 .86 82.2% 

31B 106-108 4.16 .81 80.9% 4.08 .86 80.9% 4.03 0.88 77.3% 4.10 .90 80.0% 63B 62-63 4.03 .90 80.0% 3.98 .80 78.5% 3.98 0.85 81.5% 4.23 .80 80.0% 

88M 93-95 4.23 .78 86.6% 4.19 .77 82.5% 4.17 0.88 80.4% 4.38 .84 84.5% 

Total M 4.11 .83 4.11 .81 4.06 0.86 4.28 .85 

Work Context 

11B 74-75 4.27 .66 77.7% 4.25 .70 77.7% 4.08 0.88 70.6% 3.80 .96 60.0% 19K 85-86 4.08 .69 77.2% 4.07 .72 76.1% 3.96 0.82 70.7% 3.91 .79 76.1% 

25U 255-257 4.23 .67 83.6% 4.33 .64 86.8% 4.02 0.83 74.3% 3.90 .74 69.6% 

31B 106-107 4.19 .75 82.1% 4.23 .64 84.6% 4.06 0.77 73.5% 4.11 .78 76.1% 63B 72-73 3.97 .78 64.0% 3.95 .76 66.3% 3.85 0.83 59.6% 3.64 1.06 51.7% 

88M 147-149 4.02 .69 71.0% 3.97 .77 71.0% 3.94 0.74 67.1% 3.85 1.01 65.3% 

Total M 744-748 4.14 .71 77.3% 4.17 .71 78.8% 3.99 0.81 70.2% 3.89 .87 67.4% 

51
Table 32. Respondent Reactions to Worker-Oriented Questionnaires – Abilities, Styles, Values, and Interests 

Ease of Use Instructions Clarity Relevance to MOS 

Domain/MOS N M SD % Good M SD % Good M SD % Good M SD % Good 

Work Abilities 

11B 63 4.30 .56 76.0% 4.33 .51 78.5% 4.29 0.73 76.0% 4.41 .59 76.0% 

19K 55-56 4.11 .53 67.6% 4.11 .53 67.6% 4.04 0.60 63.5% 4.05 .64 64.9% 

25U 161-163 4.14 .65 71.0% 4.20 .66 72.0% 4.12 0.72 71.5% 4.04 .70 68.6% 

31B 102-103 4.20 .68 79.3% 4.21 .68 78.5% 4.14 0.76 76.7% 4.15 .80 75.0% 

63B 73-76 3.97 .91 76.7% 4.00 .85 74.2% 3.97 0.83 76.7% 3.93 .91 74.4% 

88M 98 4.17 .75 68.2% 4.23 .59 69.8% 4.20 0.59 69.0% 4.03 .87 63.6% 

Total M 554-561 4.15 .69 72.9% 4.19 .66 73.3% 4.13 0.72 72.3% 4.09 .77 70.0% 

Work Styles 

11B 54-55 4.35 .55 67.1% 4.37 .52 67.1% 4.37 0.52 67.1% 4.47 .57 67.1% 

19K 48-49 4.10 .59 56.8% 4.12 .60 58.1% 4.04 0.61 55.4% 4.02 .66 55.4% 

25U 134-136 4.18 .69 59.9% 4.18 .69 59.4% 4.21 0.71 59.4% 4.17 .72 57.5% 

31B 92-93 4.31 .57 75.9% 4.30 .59 75.0% 4.33 0.60 75.0% 4.27 .57 75.0% 

63B 65-67 3.96 .91 67.4% 3.98 .86 65.1% 3.97 0.85 66.3% 3.99 .84 67.4% 

88M 84-85 4.32 .56 62.8% 4.29 .55 62.8% 4.28 0.55 62.8% 4.30 .60 60.5% 

Total M 483-486 4.21 .67 64.7% 4.21 .66 64.2% 4.22 0.67 64.1% 4.21 .68 63.2% 

52
53

Table 32. (continued) 

Ease of Use (1-5) Instructions (1-5) Clarity (1-5) Relevance to MOS (1-5) 

Domain/MOS N M SD % Good M SD % Good M SD % Good M SD % Good 

Work Values 

11B 49-50 4.14 .78 58.9% 4.06 .71 56.2% 4.04 .73 57.5% 4.04 .64 54.8% 

19K 47 4.32 .78 67.2% 4.38 .64 67.2% 4.26 .71 62.7% 4.23 .67 64.2% 

25U 168-170 4.17 .69 65.7% 4.13 .69 64.8% 4.06 .80 63.1% 4.04 .72 62.7% 

31B 75 4.21 .79 61.3% 4.13 .89 58.6% 4.12 .85 57.7% 4.15 .80 59.5% 

63B 43-44 4.25 .58 60.3% 4.26 .69 57.4% 4.23 .57 60.3% 4.20 .63 57.4% 

88M 102-104 4.22 .56 68.8% 4.26 .52 69.4% 4.12 .69 67.4% 4.10 .64 66.7% 

Total M 487-490 4.21 .69 64.3% 4.18 .70 63.2% 4.11 .75 62.1% 4.10 .70 61.6% 

Work Interests 

11B 56-57 4.09 .87 65.8% 4.18 .68 68.5% 4.09 .79 63.0% 3.96 .84 58.9% 

19K 52-53 4.11 .97 67.2% 4.17 .89 67.2% 4.19 .90 67.2% 4.06 .98 64.2% 

25U 183-185 4.19 .58 72.9% 4.22 .57 73.3% 4.15 .72 69.5% 4.08 .73 67.0% 

31B 93-94 4.20 .75 76.6% 4.18 .76 75.7% 4.13 .83 73.0% 4.05 .87 73.0% 

63B 52-53 4.13 .71 66.2% 4.21 .70 67.7% 4.11 .67 67.7% 3.94 .72 58.8% 

88M 116-119 4.20 .56 76.4% 4.20 .56 74.3% 4.14 .71 75.0% 3.95 .86 69.4% 

Total M 558-561 4.17 .69 72.2% 4.20 .66 72.2% 4.14 .76 70.0% 4.02 .82 66.5% 
V. Summary of Findings and Discussion

Major Findings and Limitations from the Field Test 

The purpose of the field test was to evaluate the prototype job analysis approach. Our 

evaluation of the approach focused on answering the following questions: 

• Were the jobs rated reliably using the field test questionnaires? 

• Did incumbents and supervisors agree in their ratings? 

• Did the ratings differentiate among jobs? 

• Did participants react favorably to the questionnaires? 

 

Overall, the results of the field test were encouraging, as evidenced by the following: 

The multi-rater reliability estimates were consistently .80 or greater, with many .90 and 

above, indicating that the mean ratings evidence sufficient reliability to support their use in 

operational decision-making (e.g., clustering MOS). These estimates were generally comparable 

to or exceeded those obtained on corresponding questionnaires administered to Army supervisors 

during an evaluation of the use of the existing O*NET system to describe Army jobs. In 

particular, the estimates for worker abilities obtained using the prototype approach were 

consistently higher than those observed using the O*NET work abilities questionnaire (a mean 

multi-rater ICC of .95 using the prototype approach versus .75 for the O*NET). 

Overall, there was greater within group variability than between group variability, 

indicating that most of the systematic variance in ratings was more likely a function of yet to be 

examined factors (e.g., duty position), rather than rater type. Differences between incumbent and 

supervisor ratings, on average, were generally low. The absolute standardized mean differences in 

ratings between the two rater types were, on average, about one-third of a standard deviation or 

smaller (mean |d| < .33), compared to the standard deviations within any rater type, which were 

typically .70 or greater. Further, there was no evidence that the differences followed a systematic 

pattern (i.e., one group consistently rated the descriptors within a given domain higher or lower than 

the other group). Similarly, the correlations in the ratings profile between the two rater types were 

generally high, on average (mean r of .53 or greater), with correlations in the .80s for work activities, 

evidence that incumbents and supervisors were generally consistent in the relative importance they 

assigned the job descriptors within any given domain. 

Ratings from the questionnaires demonstrated promise for differentiating among MOS, 

although the differences were small in several instances, at least in absolute terms. With the 

exception of work styles and values, the mean correlations in rating profiles across MOS for any 

single domain were consistently lower, on average, than the correlations between rater types within 

an MOS (with differences in mean r ranging from .09 to .22). A similar pattern of results, however, 

was not evident when examining the average absolute standardized mean differences, where the 

mean differences between MOS were generally comparable to or lower than those reflecting 

differences between rater types within an MOS (the differences in mean |d| ranged from .02 to .22). 

Among the worker-oriented questionnaires, the ones demonstrating the greatest potential, on average, 

for differentiating across MOS were worker abilities and interests, at least for this particular sample 

of MOS (Abilities: mean r = .55, mean |d| = .32; Interests: mean r = .67; mean |d| = .34). 

54
Participants’ reactions to the questionnaires and their content were generally positive, 

both in terms of their ease of use and their relevance for describing their MOS. About 62% or 

greater of the participants, on average, found the questionnaires easy to use and the instructions 

and content clear, with upwards of 87% of participants reacting that way to the work activities 

questionnaires. Similarly, 62% or more of the participants, on average, rated the questionnaires 

as useful and relevant to describing their MOS, with upwards of 88% of participants rating the 

work activities questionnaires in that manner. Overall, participants reacted more favorably to the 

work-oriented questionnaires, in particular the work activities questionnaire, than the workeroriented questionnaires. This finding is not surprising, given that the work-oriented 

questionnaires, specifically those measuring work activities, contained the most job-specific 

content. 

 Although the results of the field test were generally promising, this research was not 

without its limitations. Specifically: 

The response rates to the questionnaires were generally low, particularly for incumbents. 

Among incumbents, response rates were typically 5% or less. The response rates among 

supervisors tended to be two to three times that rate (10% to 15%), with a high close to 31%. 

There were also notable differences in response rates by MOS, with 25U generally evidencing 

the highest response rates and 11B and 19K demonstrating the lowest response rates. Although 

low, these response rates were consistent with those typically encountered by the Army’s 

Occupational Analysis Program (OAP). 

The ratings collected did not permit an examination of the similarities and differences in 

work activities by MOS. Although ratings were collected on work activities during the field test, 

these data were on the lower-order (or more job-specific) activities. As a result, no data were 

available to evaluate the psychometric properties and discriminate validity associated with a 

questionnaire measuring higher-order (or cross job) work activity descriptors. A preliminary set 

of those descriptors, based on the Job Activities and Task Categories generated for Project 

SYNVAL, were developed for this project and used during the O*NET evaluation (see Russell et 

al., 2008). Because priorities had to be made, a questionnaire measuring those cross job work 

activity descriptors was not administered in the field test.6

 However, some evidence for the 

potential value of such a measure, albeit indirect, was evident in the results for the work interests 

questionnaire. The work interests questionnaire measured the importance of interests in 

performing various higher-order work activities required for the job. The content of the 

questionnaire was based on a slightly modified version of the O*NET’s Generalized Work 

Activities (GWA) taxonomy. In general, the work interests measure evidenced higher multi-rater 

reliability estimates, greater discriminant validity, and more favorable participant reactions than 

the other worker-oriented questionnaires. 

 

6

 Further evidence for the utility of the cross job work activity descriptors can be found in a recently completed 

project that used an expanded version of these descriptors in a content validation of the ASVAB (Waters, Russell, 

Shaw, Allen, Sellman, & Geimer, 2009). 

55
Although the evidence for discriminant validity was promising, the differences in ratings 

by MOS from any single domain were generally small in absolute terms. For example, the 

average absolute standardized mean differences by MOS ranged from .18 (Work Context and 

Work Values) to .34 (Work Interests). There are several potential explanations for this finding: 

(a) the nature of the MOS sampled; (b) the use of importance ratings, as opposed to level ratings 

or some alternative kind of rating exercise with greater potential to differentiate across MOS; (c) 

the questionnaires contained a number of items not useful for differentiating across MOS, or at 

least this particular sample of MOS; and (d) the use of web-based surveys to collect ratings, as 

opposed to some alternative data collection method (e.g., a workshop). 

Looking at the Army’s Model for Generating Job Analysis Data: Beyond the Descriptors 

The work in this project has focused primarily on developing and field testing a job 

analysis approach to describe Army jobs that could be implemented Army-wide to support the 

many needs of its classification research program, from clustering MOS to criterion 

measurement development to validity generalization or transportation. Although personnel 

classification served as the primary driver, many elements of the approach were designed in a 

way that they could potentially support the Army’s other job analysis needs as well, particularly 

training development. An implicit assumption has been that the Army’s current model for 

collecting job analysis data would stay the same. Key elements of this model are that (a) MOS 

proponents are responsible for creating the job analysis descriptors, using guidance provided in 

Army regulations, and (b) the primary data collection strategy is through web-based 

questionnaires. In this section, we discuss why it is important to consider alternative models for 

conducting occupational analysis in the Army and to discuss how they might be changed to make 

it more feasible to maintain a new Army-wide job analysis system. Some of these strategies have 

been incorporated into the prototype questionnaire (e.g., use of standardized, cross-job 

descriptors). 

Barriers to Collecting Army Job Analysis Information 

Historically, it has been difficult for the Army to expend the personnel resources required 

to update job analysis information. This includes the time required for Army personnel to update 

the information that would go into a questionnaire as well as the time it takes for respondents to 

complete it. Over the past decade as the Army’s operational tempo has increased dramatically, 

this constraint has become particularly severe, resulting in outdated job analysis information for 

many MOS. No matter how ideal the descriptors are, an Army-wide job analysis system that 

does not effectively minimize practical barriers to the generation and collection of this 

information will not be effective. 

56
Strategies to Minimize Burden on Army Personnel for Developing Job Descriptors 

 Use Standardized Job Descriptors 

Proponents under the Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) are responsible 

for maintaining job analysis information for their respective MOS. When requested by the 

proponent, ARI provides technical and administrative support through its OAP. The OAP 

provides assistance in developing descriptor content, programming and administering web-based 

questionnaires using the InterForm software application, and data analysis. An advantage of the 

job descriptors developed in the present research is that most of them, with the exception of the 

lower-order (or more job-specific) work activities, are standardized across MOS. This feature (a) 

reduces the burden on individual proponents to develop job-specific information, and (b) enables 

the Army to examine the similarities and differences across MOS, by providing a common basis 

of comparison. The results of the field test, and those of the Army’s O*NET evaluation project, 

demonstrate that using a standardized approach for measuring targeted descriptor domains yields 

sufficiently reliable and valid data for characterizing the similarities and differences in MOS, 

supplementing the kinds of more job-specific information collected under the existing system, 

with minimal additional development costs to the Army. 

Avoid Unnecessarily Detailed Job-Specific Descriptors 

The lower-order work activities identified in the present research were intended to be less 

detailed, or specific, than the tasks prescribed in Army Regulation 350-70 and TRADOC 

Pamphlet 350-70-6. Defining lower-order work activities in a broader manner makes the 

activities relevant to many or all MOS rather than only a small number. Taking this approach is 

advantageous for several reasons. First, the prototype approach produces descriptors detailed 

enough to support criterion measurement development, as well as training development, but that 

can retain their relevancy longer than more traditional, detailed task statements. Second, it results 

in a smaller number of descriptors, making them easier to review, maintain, and collect data on, 

compared to the Army’s traditional approach. Third, specifying work activity descriptors at a 

slightly more general level is consistent with the emphasis that several Army proponents (e.g., 

medics) have placed on principles-based training, rather than training based on a highly detailed 

series of tasks and proceduralized steps for accomplishing them. The shift in training program 

orientation is consistent with TRADOC’s increasing emphasis on outcomes-based training 

 Although the prototype approach provides a useful model for generating lower-order 

work activities, input from Army job incumbents or supervisors will be needed to ensure that any 

work activity statements collected for future job analysis efforts are current and reasonably 

comprehensive. In the present research, we sought less input from job incumbents or supervisors 

than would most likely be required for an operational program because previous research on the 

MOS sampled in the present research provided great insight into the characteristics of those 

MOS. The currency of input from retired SMEs cannot be assured. Any new system would 

thereby benefit, and would be more cost effective in the long run, were existing Army 

Regulations revised to produce content that best meets its needs and constraints. As with any 

new system, initial efforts will demand greater labor resources than subsequent efforts, once 

inefficiencies have been identified and revised. 

57
We estimate that the cost for generating the lower-order work activity descriptors 

following the prototype approach would initially run about $15-25K per MOS (in FY 2010 

dollars). This cost estimate assumes existing expertise with the prototype approach and modest 

support from SMEs with knowledge of the kinds of work activities performed by entry-level 

Soldiers in the MOS. Over time, the cost per MOS would decrease as the pool of work activity 

descriptors expand to reflect the kinds of activities required of a representative sample of MOS. 

At that point, existing work activity descriptors could be re-used or modified, as appropriate 

(e.g., by simply changing the kind of weapon-equipment-tool used), to describe similar MOS at 

minimal cost to the Army. Please note that the aforementioned cost estimate does not take into 

account methods of collecting, maintaining, and analyzing data. 

Strategies to Increase Effectiveness of Data Collection Approach 

A primary feature of the Army’s existing job analysis model is that information is 

collected from incumbents and supervisors via web-based questionnaires. According to Army 

Regulation 370-50, updated job analysis information should be collected every 3 years. This 

guidance has largely been difficult to follow for the reasons cited above. Even for those MOS 

with updated information, Army job analysis surveys typically yield a response rate of just 10%-

12%. Our experience in the field test was similar. 

Two major obstacles to obtaining larger response rates are (a) reaching Soldiers and (b) 

motivating them to respond. In the present research, we e-mailed links to the questionnaires via 

Soldier AKO email accounts. This process is similar to the current operational system and 

resulted in comparably low response rates. As we have found in other web-based data collections 

with Soldiers, it appears that many Soldiers do not routinely access their AKO accounts. We do 

not have a good solution for an alternative approach. One would hope, however, that as the 

Army increasingly relies upon AKO to communicate with Soldiers, Soldiers will use their AKO 

accounts more frequently and thus be more reachable through this method. 

Regarding efforts to enhance Soldiers’ motivation to respond to job analytic surveys, 

because the Army does not allow certain forms of incentives (e.g., drawings for prizes or gift 

cards), there are fewer tactics available in the Army than in other contexts (e.g., private-sector 

organizations and the general public). Researchers typically hope that emphasizing the 

importance of a project’s objectives will increase Soldier participation. Along with this 

approach, the present project attempted to make Soldiers more likely to participate by 

minimizing the time demands associated with completing its surveys. We employed a matrix 

sampling approach, whereby not all questionnaires are administered to all participants, to limit 

the time required of any given Soldier. Even though the resulting groups of questionnaires 

required 20 minutes or less to complete, our response rates were still generally low. Though we 

continue to favor strategies to limit questionnaire length or administration time (e.g., reducing 

the number of scales administered, using a matrix sampling approach), response rates of the 

present project suggest that such strategies may not significantly increase response rates. 

58
Consider Collecting Data in Workshops 

An alternative to the questionnaire-based approach used in the field test and by OAP 

would be to collect some or all of the required ratings through one or more workshops with 

participating Army job incumbents or supervisors. The present research found promising, but 

small cross-MOS differences. There are several possible reasons for this, to include the MOS 

sampled in the research. Another possibility is that a questionnaire-based approach is not 

conducive to reflecting the nuances in a 5-point rating scale that are essential to capturing crossMOS differences; this was the primary motivation for including a ranking exercise in the 

questionnaires, first piloted and then dropped prior to the field test. It is possible that judgments 

made in a workshop setting would result in greater discrimination, because of the increased time 

for training and discussion among workshop participants. Such workshops were used 

successfully in the Army O*NET evaluation and could hold promise as an alternative to a largescale questionnaire-based approach. 

There are pros and cons to any given data collection method, including workshops. 

Whereas workshops could result in more reliable and discriminant ratings than a questionnairebased approach, they would require more time from a smaller and potentially less representative 

sample of SMEs. Any method selected will result in trade-offs between costs and the quality of 

the information obtained, however measured. 

 Collect SL1 Occupational Analysis Data Only From Supervisors 

 In this field test as in other questionnaire-based research involving Soldiers, response 

rates were consistently higher among senior than junior Soldiers. Although we observed 

differences in the ratings made between incumbents and supervisors, we found minimal evidence 

that the differences were systematic or attributable to substantive position differences and not 

other factors. If incumbents are not required to collect accurate job information, then they could 

be excluded from data collection, assuming the absence of reasons to include their input (e.g., if 

ratings are expected to differ by rating source). As with the other suggestions for data collection, 

decisions regarding sampling strategy should consider balancing anticipated information quality 

and information gathering efficiency according to project objectives. 

Ensuring Training Requirements are Addressed 

 Although the primary objective of the present research was to ensure that the Army 

collects job analysis data that supports classification research, it is important not to lose sight of 

the importance of these data for training systems development. There are well-established Army 

regulations and guidelines associated with the Army’s current job analysis system that are driven 

by training needs. These are engrained in the current system even if they are not strictly 

followed. For example, some proponents have moved toward training strategies that are no 

longer strictly task-focused. An example is medics who are increasingly being trained on medical 

principles that allow them to problem-solve when proceduralized task knowledge is insufficient. 

Now may be the right time to involve TRADOC proponents in evaluating potential 

changes to the existing system. Do the processes being developed as part of ARI’s line of 

59
research adequately support the Army’s current training requirements? Indeed, one can also ask 

if the Army’s current job analysis process satisfy these requirements. To the extent to which they 

do not, what modifications, either small or large, should be made? It is certainly conceivable that 

the system field tested in the present research effort would provide some but not all the 

information needed to support TRADOC’s needs. In that case, how would this new system feed 

into the existing processes specified by Army regulations and TRADOC pamphlets? Addressing 

such questions would clearly be key to any implementation plan. 

VI. Recommendations for Additional Research 

As illustrated in Figure 1 (pg. 2 of this report), the next step in the ACRP’s roadmap calls 

for using the prototype job analysis approach to collect data on a larger sample of MOS. As part 

of such an effort, we propose three areas for further research. 

• Refine the job analysis descriptors and rating scales 

• Evaluate alternative data collection strategies 

• Collect data on cross-job descriptors from a larger sample of MOS to enable MOS 

clustering 

As discussed in the remainder of this report, we believe that the prototype job analysis approach 

used in the field test can be refined to maximize its effectiveness and efficiency. An assessment 

of its utility for classification can be cost-effectively accomplished through collection of data 

from a relatively large sample of MOS using descriptor domains that are invariant across MOS. 

 Any significant variations on the current prototype process (e.g., adding a different type 

of rating scale or collecting data in workshops versus web-based questionnaires) should be tested 

before their incorporation into the process. If a revision to the system affects work-oriented 

descriptor domains, it could be initially evaluated among a subsample of the MOS. Revisions 

that pertain to worker-oriented descriptor domains that would be part of an MOS clustering data 

collection should be evaluated using an experimental design. 

Refine the Descriptors and Rating Scales 

Cross-Job Descriptors 

It is likely that some of the worker-oriented domains include descriptors that do not 

differentiate well among MOS. Identifying and eliminating such descriptors from the job 

analysis process would improve the overall utility of the overall system for classification. It 

would not be wise to discard problematic descriptors based on the small sample of MOS used in 

the present field test, but the removal of descriptors that fail to distinguish among a larger 

number of MOS should be considered. Discarding such descriptors may not only improve the 

differential validity of the overall set of descriptors but may also enhance Soldier reactions to the 

job analysis process by removing statements that are either irrelevant or overly common across a 

wide range of MOS. 

60
Work Activities 

Our initial efforts to develop occupation-specific knowledge and skills descriptors were 

discontinued because they tended to overlap with work activity descriptors. A more useful 

approach for incorporating this kind of information would be to combine the two domains in 

new, useful ways, per one of the earlier recommendations of the ACRP. A similar 

recommendation could be made with regards to weapons-equipment-tools-technology. Table 33 

contains illustrative examples of descriptors that integrate these two domains into work activity 

descriptors, based on the O*NET’s Detailed Work Activities (DWAs) (Dietrich et al., 2002; The 

National Center for O*NET Development, 2003). 

Table 33. Examples of Work Activity Descriptors that Incorporate Knowledge and ToolsBased Descriptors 

Domain Examples 

Occupation-Specific Knowledges 

and Skills 

• Understand detailed electronic design specifications 

• Understand technical information for electronic repair work 

• Understand technical operating, service or repair manuals 

Weapons-Equipment-ToolsTechnology 

• Operate hoist, winch, or hydraulic boom 

• Set up and operate variety of machine tools 

• Use electrical or electronic test devices or equipment 

• Use hand or power tools 

• Use lifting equipment in vehicle repair setting 

Other examples can be found in the lower-order work activity statements developed for 

the present field test. Taking this approach would make generating the job-specific content 

(lower-order work activities) needed to support the Army’s classification research program 

easier. Once a standardized series of templates of work activity statements for describing a 

targeted subset of jobs (e.g., mechanical or electronics repair) has been developed, one could 

then easily produce job-specific statements by inserting content specific to a job. The kinds of 

weapons/equipment/tools/technology used or occupation-specific knowledge required of a job 

typically differentiates jobs at the lower levels of detail to a greater extent than what a Soldier 

does with those items (e.g., maintaining, trouble-shooting, repairing, operating). 

Ratings 

It can be argued that the conceptual distinction between ratings of a task’s job importance 

and consequences-for-mission is subtle. In the present research, importance and mission 

criticality ratings correlated at .97 among supervisors and at .92 among incumbents. Clearly, it is 

not necessary to collect both sets of ratings. As discussed previously, reducing survey length is 

desirable and can be achieved by reducing the number of rating scales. 

If only the importance rating scale is retained, it could be revised to promote greater 

differentiation among jobs. For example, supervisors could be asked to rate worker-related 

descriptors in comparison to other MOS (e.g., How important is this work style/interest/value to 

the job of first term Soldiers in this MOS relative to other MOS?). We would not advise using 

such a scale with first-term incumbents, but NCOs would be in a better position to make such 

judgments. 

61
Further consideration of the difficulty-to-learn scale is also warranted prior to the 

collection of additional data. Because the scale was developed without input from Army 

personnel responsible for the design of training programs, it may have questionable relevance for 

future TRADOC initiatives. Before the scale is used in future research, input should be obtained 

from TRADOC personnel on issues related to the scale, such as whether focusing on classroom 

training limits the generalizability of results found from using the scale. 

Investigate Alternative Data Collection Strategies 

At least for SL1 job analysis information, the field test results suggest that it may not be 

necessary to collect both incumbent and supervisor data. We suggest using the proposed MOS 

clustering data collection to confirm (or not) these results. Whether collecting ratings via 

questionnaires or in workshop settings, if SL1 Soldiers are not required in collecting accurate 

information, they should be excluded from the process. 

Another strategy concerns collecting various types of descriptor information. The 

workshop method could be implemented in various ways, including a single workshop with a 

sufficient number and sampling of SMEs to represent variations in the MOS. Alternatively, a 

series of workshops could be held at multiple locations to get closer to concentrations of SMEs 

in the MOS. The research would be most informative if multiple strategies could be used for the 

same MOS so the results would be directly comparable. The comparison could examine quality 

of information as well as cost and SME/proponent reactions. 

Finally, future research may want to assess the extent to which the utility of different 

methods of data collection depends upon the type of data collected. For example, it could be that 

data on work-oriented descriptors are most efficiently collected using questionnaires but that 

worker-oriented data suitable for MOS clustering work is more effectively collected in 

workshops. 

Collect Data on a Larger Sample of MOS and Use to Cluster MOS 

In the near-term, collecting job analysis ratings on a larger sample of MOS would 

potentially serve two purposes. The first purpose would be to cluster MOS in order to select 

which to target in criterion-related validation research. The second purpose would be to identify 

or develop end-of-training criteria that sufficiently support the Army’s personnel classification 

research but require fewer resources to construct and administer [e.g., the occupational judgment 

tests developed by Legree, Psotka, Bludau, and Gray (2009)]. In the long-term, collecting job 

analytic ratings on a large sample of MOS would allow the Army to evaluate procedures for 

generalizing or transporting criterion-related validation evidence obtained from a smaller sample 

of MOS to a larger one. This would be useful for the development or updating of prediction 

equations to be used in classifying new Soldiers, for example. 

For the purposes of meeting the near-term objective of clustering MOS, an expanded 

sample of MOS would need to be larger than the number of focal MOS to be included in the 

proposed validation research. The ACRP recommended that the sample of focal MOS for the 

62
criterion-related validation research would comprise 20-30 jobs. Accordingly, job analysis data 

would need to be collected from an additional 45-55 MOS to ensure that a sample will be large 

enough to inform clustering or validity generalization analyses. Below is a proposed procedure 

for collecting data on a large sample of MOS. 

Activity 1: Select the MOS to be sampled. 

This would first involve an identification of relevant factors upon which to base decisions 

about the inclusion or exclusion of certain MOS from sampling plans. Such factors would reflect 

the demands and resources associated with a research project (i.e., scientific or technical, Army 

policy and personnel management objectives, resource constraints). Once a set of factors had 

been chosen, MOS would then be rated (or ranked) according to the factors and a final set of 45-

55 MOS would be selected. Any information on existing or proposed MOS clusters could be 

useful in this selection process. 

Activity 2: Select the descriptor domains to be measured. 

Ideally, ratings would be collected on all the descriptor domains. However, priorities will 

likely need to be made to minimize the data collection burden placed on Army personnel. 

Accordingly, we would recommend prioritizing the domains as follows (from most to least 

important): 

• Higher-order (or cross job) work activities 

• Work interests 

• Work styles and values 

• Work abilities 

This prioritization is based on the field test results, as well as earlier recommendations of 

the ACRP, regarding which domains represent the “best bets” for clustering MOS in ways that 

would maximize their utility for personnel classification research. Collecting ratings on the first 

three domains would be particularly useful because those data could then be used to develop a 

preliminary set of rationally-weighted composites for classifying new Soldiers to MOS, based on 

scores from new and emerging predictor measures, such as the Work Preferences Assessment 

(WPA) or the Tailored Adaptive Personality Assessment System (TAPAS). A preliminary set of 

cross job work activity descriptors, customized to the Army, were developed for this project and 

for the O*NET evaluation. An expanded version of these cross job descriptors was recently used 

in a content validation of the ASVAB (see Waters et al., 2009 and Appendix F). 

Lower-order work activities are excluded from the list of descriptors for two reasons. 

First, the time and financial resources required to generate lower-order work activities for 45-55 

MOS could be tremendous. Second, collecting data on those descriptors is not essential for the 

near-term purpose of clustering MOS or for developing (or identifying) end-of-training criteria, 

based on higher-order information about the MOS sampled. Once the clusters have been 

developed and the 20-30 priority MOS identified for criterion-related validation research, lowerorder work activities could then be formulated for those targeted MOS. 

63
Activity 3: Select the data collection method and from whom data are to be collected. 

 

 As addressed in the preceding section, no single data collection method is likely to prove 

“best” for collecting ratings on the selected domains. However, given the number of MOS to be 

sampled, a questionnaire-based approach is likely to be the most cost affordable, while at the 

same time likely to yield sufficiently reliable and valid ratings. This is particularly true since the 

questionnaires for the recommended domains have already been developed and programmed for 

web-based administration using the Army’s InterForm platform. There are multiple strategies for 

enhancing the potential of the existing questionnaires to differentiate across MOS that would not 

require extensive resources from the Army to implement (e.g., using ratings from multiple 

domains to cluster MOS, using data for a larger sample of MOS to eliminate items not useful for 

discriminating across MOS, having participants select the top five most important and least 

important attributes). 

Another practical advantage to administering web-based questionnaires is that the 

questionnaires could be easily administered to both supervisors and incumbents for the same 

administrative cost(s). Unless collecting data from incumbents for the MOS sampled interferes 

with other Army data collection priorities or identifying incumbents to participate requires 

significant resources, it makes sense then to administer the questionnaires to raters from both 

groups. Doing so would enable the Army to more comprehensively examine the practical 

implications of collecting ratings from the two groups (e.g., by comparing what differences, if 

any, exist between the clustering solutions obtained from supervisor and incumbent ratings). 

Activity 4: Prepare and administer the data collection materials. Modify the database. 

The next activity would involve finalizing the questionnaires for web-based 

administration and modifying the existing database, as needed. Based on the preceding 

discussion, any changes to the questionnaires would generally be minimal and would not require 

generating job-specific content (e.g., adding an additional exercise to identify the top five most 

and least important descriptors within each domain). The results of the field test indicate that 20-

25 participants per questionnaire, on average, would yield sufficiently reliable ratings to 

construct group means for clustering the MOS. Assuming a 5% response rate, surveys should be 

sent to about 500 Soldiers (supervisors and incumbents) per MOS. 

Activity 5: Analyze the ratings and cluster the MOS. 

 The primary, near-term objective of this activity is to derive clusters to facilitate the 

selection of target MOS for criterion-related validation research. In general, clustering the MOS 

would involve two steps. The first step consists of clustering the MOS on the basis of the ratings 

for each of the targeted domains, separately. The resulting clusters could be further refined (a) 

empirically (i.e., from component analyses of applicable descriptors within each domain) or (b) 

rationally on the basis of which descriptors carry the greatest potential for classification gains 

(e.g., specific interests first, work styles second, and then values). The second step would be to 

perform a series of two-stage cluster analyses, where MOS are clustered first on the basis of the 

higher-order work activities and then on each worker-oriented domain, separately. The resulting 

two-stage cluster solutions could then be compared empirically to determine which carries the 

64
greatest potential for enhancing the Army’s existing classification system, thereby forming the 

basis on which MOS will be sampled for future criterion-related validation research. 

Conclusion 

Developing and implementing a new Army-wide job analysis system that collects critical 

information without being unwieldy to maintain is a daunting but necessary task. Implementing 

such a system, however, will enable the Army to accomplish its near- and long-term 

classification research objectives. A system exhibiting the following features is most likely to 

meet these objectives: 

• A common language, customized to the Army context, for describing similarities and 

differences in MOS. This common language should consist of a reasonably 

comprehensive set of descriptors representing targeted work (i.e., work activities, work or 

job context, machine-tools-equipment-technology) and worker-oriented (i.e., knowledge, 

skills, abilities, work values, interests) domains. These descriptors must be sufficient for 

describing any MOS. 

• Cross-MOS descriptors for use in identifying similarities and differences across MOS. 

• Descriptors, in particular work activities (i.e., what Soldiers do on a job), at multiple 

levels of generality that can be organized hierarchically to support the Army’s needs for 

job information at multiple levels of aggregation. 

• The flexibility to combine descriptors or data on descriptors from multiple, traditionally 

independent domains, and in new or innovative ways that enable the identification of 

similarities and differences in Army jobs. 

• A reasonable cost to implement the system. 

• Sufficient flexibility so that the descriptors can be refined and updated, as needed. The 

system needs to include a mechanism for adding new descriptors, or modifying existing 

descriptors, as job information on a larger sample of MOS is collected or MOS 

requirements change over time. 

• A foundation based on descriptor taxonomies, developed or refined using a combined 

top-down and bottom-up approach, as recommended by the ACRP. 

• A relational database that collects, organizes, and stores job analysis data systematically 

over time and that facilitates the integration of these data with other relevant personnel 

data (e.g., criterion-related validity estimates). 

The prototype job analysis system developed and field tested in this effort was designed 

with these features in mind. The results of the field test demonstrate that the prototype system 

has the potential to reliably and validly describe entry-level jobs using a questionnaire-based 

approach that is reasonably cost-effective to implement and administer Army-wide. Further, 

many of the recommend follow-on steps are intended to take advantage of available resources 

(e.g., O*NET) while incorporating lessons learned during the prototype field test and experience 

with the Army’s current system. In the end, it is important to recognize that there is arguably a 

finite number of ways in which jobs can be described. A new system may not seem to be 

dramatically different from existing ones on the surface. Nevertheless, it may produce different 

and more useful results in practice. Modifying the prototype system field tested here, along with 

paying additional attention to process-related issues (e.g., how data are collected) and 

65
coordinating efforts with existing Army systems and associated stakeholders (particularly 

TRADOC) has appreciable potential to accomplish the goals set forth by ARI and articulated in a 

roadmap formulated by the advisory panel it established (Campbell et al., 2007). 

66
References 

Borman, W.C., McKee, A.S., & Schneider, R.J. (1995). Work styles. In N.G. Peterson, M.D. 

Mumford, W.C. Borman, P.R. Jeanneret, & E.A. Fleishman (Eds.), Development of 

prototype Occupational Information Network (O*NET) content model, Volume 1: Report. 

Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. 

Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., McPhail, S. M., Pearlman, K., Peterson, N. G., Rounds, J., & 

Ingerick, M. (2007). U.S. Army Classification Research Panel: Conclusions and 

recommendations on classification research strategies (Study Report 2007-05). 

Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. 

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 

Dietrich, E., Hendrickson-Larson, J., Hoppe, R., Paige, B., & Rosenow, S. (2002). Labor 

Exchange Skills Project. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and 

Training Administration. 

Fleishman, E.A., Wetrogan, L.I., Uhlman, C.E., & Marshall-Mies, J.C. (1995). Abilities. In N.G. 

Peterson, M.D. Mumford, W.C. Borman, P.R. Jeanneret, & E.A. Fleishman (Eds.), 

Development of prototype Occupational Information Network (O*NET) content model, 

Volume 1: Report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. 

Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work 

environments (3rd Ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. 

Jeanneret, P.R., & Borman, W.C. (1995). Generalized work activities. In N.G. Peterson, M.D. 

Mumford, W.C. Borman, P.R. Jeanneret, & E.A. Fleishman (Eds.), Development of 

prototype Occupational Information Network (O*NET) content model, Volume 1: Report. 

Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. 

Knapp, D.J., & Campbell, R.C. (Eds). (2006). Army enlisted personnel competency assessment 

program: Phase II report (Technical Report 1174). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research 

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Knapp, D. J., Sager, C. E., & Tremble, T. R. (Eds.) (2005). Development of experimental Army 

enlisted personnel selection and classification tests and job performance criteria

(Technical Report 1168). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Legree, P., Psotka, J., Bludau, T. M., & Gray, D. (2009). Assessing professional competence by 

using occupational judgment tests derived from job analysis questionnaires (Technical 

Report 1242). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences. 

67
68

McCloy, R., Waugh, G., & Medsker, G. (1998). Determining the occupational reinforcer 

patterns for O*NET occupational units. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research 

Organization. 

McPhail, S.M., Blakley, B.R., Strong, M.H., Collings, T.J., Jeanneret, P.R., & Galarza, L. 

(1995). Work context. In N.G. Peterson, M.D. Mumford, W.C. Borman, P.R. Jeanneret, 

& E.A. Fleishman (Eds.), Development of prototype Occupational Information Network 

(O*NET) content model, Volume 1: Report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for 

Research. 

National Center for O*NET Development. (2003). Summary report: Updating the Detailed Work 

Activities. Alexandria, VA: Author. 

NSSB Advisory Panel on Common Language for Skill Standards (1998). Recommendations for 

an NSSB common language for skill standards. Washington, DC: National Skill 

Standards Board. 

Peterson, N. G., Mumford, M. D., Borman, W. C., Jeanneret, P. R., & Fleishman, E. A. (Eds.) 

(1999). An occupational information system for the 21st century: The development of 

O*NET. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 

Peterson, N. G., Owens-Kurtz, C., Hoffman, R. G., Arabian, J. M., & Whetzel, D. L. (Eds.) 

(1990). Army Synthetic Validation Project: Report of Phase II Results, Volume I

(Technical Report 892). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Russell, T. L., Sinclair, A., Erdheim, J., Ingerick, M., Owens, K., Peterson, N., & Pearlman, K. 

(2008). Evaluating the O*NET occupational analysis system for Army competency 

development (Technical Report 1237). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for 

the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

U.S. Department of the Army, Headquarters. (2006, October). Soldier’s manual of common 

tasks: Warrior skills level 1 (STP 21-1-SMCT). Washington, DC: Author. 

Waters, S.D., Russell, T.L., Shaw, M.N., Allen, M.T., Sellman, W.S., & Geimer, J.L. (2009), 

Development of a methodology for linking ASVAB content to military job information 

and training curricula (FR-09-64). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research 

Organization. 
Appendix A 

Recommendations and Specifications for Formulating Army Job Descriptors and Metrics 

 

A-1 
Work Activities, to include Weapons-Equipment-Tools 

Definitions 

Work activities are behaviorally based descriptions of what a Soldier (or Officer) in an 

occupation/job does (i.e., the activities s/he performs), and is held accountable to perform, over 

some span of time that contributes to, and creates, value to the Army. Generally speaking, there 

are three major categories, or types, of work activities 

Occupation/Job-Specific Technical Activities reflect work activities that constitute the 

core technical requirements of an occupation/job and that differentiate an Army 

occupation/job, or cluster of occupations/jobs, from others (e.g., performing operator 

maintenance checks and services; repairing mechanical systems; installing and 

assembling electronic components; installing wire and cables; driving a light wheeled 

vehicle).

Non-Occupation/Job-Specific (i.e., Army-Wide) Technical Activities reflect work 

activities constituting the core technical requirements that are not unique to an 

occupation/job but are required by most or all jobs in the Army (e.g., performing basic 

first aid; navigating in the field; aiming and firing a weapon; maintaining a weapon).

Non-Technical Activities reflect work activities that are non-technical, and typically 

intra- and inter-personal, in nature (e.g., exhibiting self-management, exhibiting selfdirected learning, relating to and supporting peers, demonstrating peer leadership, 

demonstrating teamwork). These requirements could be specific to an occupation/job, or 

cluster of occupations/jobs. Alternatively, they could be required of most or all Army 

jobs (i.e., Army-wide).

Each of these categories of work activities could be defined at multiple levels of 

generality, which can be arranged hierarchically within each category according to well-defined 

rules to be established as part of Phase 1 of this pilot project. At a minimum, we plan on 

formulating work activities at two levels of generality, as outlined below7

Major Duties (MDs) represent the highest-order work activities and are cross-job in 

nature. They describe a definable and nontrivial duty, or responsibility, for which a 

Soldier (or Officer) is accountable to perform, which has stakeholders to whom the 

results (i.e., outputs) are important and meaningful, and which entails work of significant 

complexity and duration. More specifically, MDs describe what a Soldier (or Officer) 

does, and, as appropriate, to what or for whom it is done. MDs duties are typically crossjob in nature (i.e., these requirements are relevant across multiple, and in some cases, all, 

Army jobs). They are behaviorally based and represent an aggregation of multiple, 

related lower-order work activities, as defined below. 

 

7

 Although we will be formulating work activities at, at least, two levels of generality, we will be capturing 

information at three levels. Task statements and other existing information on occupation/job-specific work 

activities (e.g., from Soldier Manuals) that served as source materials for formulating MDs and KWAs will 

constitute the lowest level of description. 

A-2 
The following are examples of MDs 

9 “Repair mechanical systems.” (Occupation-Specific Technical) 

9 “Install electronic components.” (Occupation-Specific Technical) 

9 “Pack and load materials.” (Occupation-Specific Technical) 

9 “Send and receive radio signals.” (Occupation-Specific Technical) 

9 “Drive wheeled vehicles.” (Occupation-Specific Technical) 

9 “Write and deliver presentations.” (Occupation-Specific Technical) 

9 “Engage in hand-to-hand combat.” (Army-Wide Technical) 

9 “Navigate in the field.” (Army-Wide Technical) 

9 “Survive in the field.” (Army-Wide Technical) 

9 “Lead a team.” (Army-Wide Non-Technical) 

9 “Support and advise peers.” (Army-Wide Non-Technical) 

Key Work Activities (KWAs) represent lower-order work activities. They are statements 

(or categories) of moderate specificity that describe a series or clustering of related 

behaviors a Soldier (or Officer) performs to achieve a specific work objective. More 

specifically, KWAs describe what a Soldier (or Officer) does, to what or for whom it is 

done, and potentially for what purpose it is done. KWAs are occupation or job-specific, 

to some degree, although it is possible that two or more occupations/jobs may share the 

same KWA. These activities typically reflect technical work activities, but could 

encompass non-technical ones as well. At their lowest-level, KWAs represent an 

aggregation of two or more related tasks, as currently found in the Army (e.g., Soldier 

Manuals). 

The following are examples of KWAs 

9 “Select and prepare firing positions for individual weapon.” 

9 “Construct field expedient firing aids for individual weapon.” 

9 “Load, unload, and correct malfunctions for individual weapon.” 

9 “Aim, track, and fire individual weapon at targets.” 

As evident from these definitions, these two levels of work activities are conceptually 

similar (i.e., both reflect work-related behaviors) so that statements reflecting the same 

underlying activity across levels can be linked. Thus, both MDs and KWAs are expected to 

follow a similar format and structure, as summarized in the proceeding sections. The chief 

difference between the two is one of breadth or scope. Specifically, whereas MDs are broader 

(i.e., higher-order) and are expected to be applicable across a relatively wide range of Army 

occupations/jobs, KWAs are more specific and often applicable only to a subset of Army 

occupations/jobs requiring a similar activity. 

 

A-3 
Objectives and Purposes to be Served 

The purposes for which these prototype job descriptors are intended to serve were 

previously outlined (pp. 2-3; 10-12). More specifically, MDs are primarily intended to provide a 

common basis, or set of cross-job descriptors, on which all Army jobs could be scaled/rated for 

the purposes of clustering jobs (i.e., to guide the sampling of Army jobs for criterion-related 

validation studies; to generalize, or transport, criterion-related validity estimates and predicted 

performance equations across jobs; to identify potential candidates for “mid-range” criterion 

measures). MDs could also be used to elicit information from Army SMEs on lower-order work 

activities, in particular non-technical requirements, in situations where existing information on 

these requirements does not exist or is otherwise incomplete. KWA categories and statements, 

and the “optimal” level(s) at which each is to be specified, are intended to provide information 

for use in clustering Army jobs (i.e., to determine the limits and understand the implications of 

generalizing, or transporting, criterion-related validity estimates and predicted performance 

equations across jobs), as well as information, and possibly content, for developing and/or 

refining performance-related criterion measures (i.e., ratings, knowledge tests). 

Recommended Structure and Format for Major Duties (MDs) 

MDs represent statements describing a definable and nontrivial duty, or responsibility, 

for which a Soldier (or Officer) is accountable to perform, which has stakeholders to whom the 

results (i.e., outputs) are important and meaningful, and which entails work of significant 

complexity and duration. The following are recommendations for the format and structure of 

MDs and are intended to serve as a guide when generating MD statements. 

• The total set of MDs developed should be sufficiently comprehensive. That is, it should 

include all of the important duties, technical and non-technical, and not simply constitute a 

sampling of representative duties required of Soldiers (or Officers). 

• Statements should describe MDs, and not worker-related characteristics. MD statements 

should describe a set, or cluster, or related work activities Soldiers are responsible for 

performing. They should not describe occupation-specific knowledges and skills, personal 

qualities, or other worker-oriented characteristics. The inclusion of these requirements in 

MDs should be avoided. 

√ Install electronic components 

√ Troubleshoot mechanical systems 

√ Repair individual weapons 

√ Lead a team 

X Knowledge of mechanical principles 

X Understands weapon operating, service or repair manuals 

 

A-4 
• Statements should reflect important duties or responsibilities that are as objective, 

observable, and as fully specified as possible. That is, statements should lend themselves to 

measurement, either on an order-of-magnitude (quantitative) basis, or in terms of clearly 

observable and understandable criteria by which the presence or absence of the described 

duty or responsibility can be reliably assessed or evaluated. Doing this is important both for 

purposes of collecting job analysis data on these descriptors, as well as developing criterion 

measures. 

• Statements should be at the appropriate level of generality. MDs should not be so general as 

to be nearly universally applicable (e.g., “Makes Decisions,” “Inputs information”, 

“Identifies objects, actions, and events”, “Repairs equipment”). Alternatively, MDs 

statements should not be as specific as KWAs, as defined here. MDs should be sufficiently 

general that they can be applied across Army jobs for the purposes of describing similarities 

and differences in these jobs using a common metric. 

√ Repair electrical systems 

X Correct malfunctions of alternator 

X Correct malfunction of batteries 

X Replace protective control box 

• Statements should convey a complete and well-defined MD, making clear what is done, and, 

as appropriate, to what or for whom it is done. A MD statement should include both a verb 

(specifying the action, e.g., “Repair”) and an object (a noun specifying who or what is acted 

upon, e.g., “weapons”, “electronic systems”, “mechanical systems”). Avoid multiple verbs 

that imply, or reflect, more than one type of duty and, potentially, differing work activities. 

Similarly, avoid verbs that are general or have multiple meanings (e.g., Does “operate 

weapon” mean “fire weapon” or “clean” or “load”?). 

• Verbs conveying a concrete, specifiable duty are preferable to more abstract or complex 

verbs, which often leave the nature of the duty unclear or ambiguous. For example, “explain” 

is better than “consult”; “check,” “inspect,” or “review” are better than “ensure that”; other 

verbs that are often problematic in this way are “coordinate” and “determine,” which are 

usually unclear as to the nature of the duty. 

• Use standardized wording structure and consistent terminology as far as possible across the 

sets of MDs. MD statements should follow the same wording structure, as outlined in the two 

preceding bullets. When referencing the same object use the same term consistently across 

statements. For example, if a weapon maintained and operated by an individual Soldier (or 

Officer) is referred to as an “individual weapon”, that term should be used consistently. 

Avoid using alternative wording or terms (e.g., “assigned weapon” or “personal weapon”) for 

the same object unless truly referencing a new and different object.

 

A-5 
• Statements should be as simple and concise as possible, without sacrificing meaning, and not 

make use of occupation-specific jargon and acronyms. Compound and complex (hyphenated, 

slashed) word constructions (e.g., "Develop alternative/modified strategic/tactical plans...") 

should be avoided. If the hyphen or slash means “or,” it is better to write “or”; if it means 

“and,” two statements may be warranted. Although MD statements should be Army-specific, 

the language used should be “user-friendly” (i.e., free of jargon or complex terminology 

specific to that job or occupation). That is, statements should be simple but sufficiently 

descriptive of the duty performed so that an individual without specific training and/or tenure 

in the Army can understand what is done, and, as appropriate, to what or for whom it is done. 

• Statements should be descriptive rather than evaluative. For example, “Maintains a motor 

vehicle” is appropriate. “Maintains a motor vehicle in a manner that minimizes unneeded 

repairs and maintenance,” is not. 

√ Maintains a motor vehicle 

X Maintains a motor vehicle in a manner that minimizes unneeded repairs 

and maintenance 

• Statements should avoid the use of examples (e.g., xxx) to clarify the boundaries of similar, 

and potentially related, duties. The use of examples for purposes of delineating differences 

across similar, and potentially related, duties should be avoided. As much as feasible, 

differences across MDs should be reflected in the statements themselves.

X Repair electrical systems (e.g., instrument panels, vehicle starter systems, 

batteries) 

X Repair mechanical systems (e.g., engines, transmissions, vehicle brake 

systems) 

Proposed Steps and Procedure for Generating Major Duties (MDs) 

The following are the proposed steps and procedure for generating MDs. At the end of 

this process there should be a set of 50-100 MD statements (roughly), reflecting both technical 

and non-technical work activities, for use in workshops with proponent SMEs to formulate and 

calibrate a hierarchical work activities taxonomy linking these higher-order requirements to 

KWAs, as well as the rules for doing so. The generation of MDs will take place at the same time 

as the initial drafting of KWAs, as described in the proceeding sections. 

Activity 1. Starting with a pool of candidate performance descriptors customized to Army, 

the Descriptor Development Team generates a preliminary taxonomy (or first draft) of MDs by 

reformatting and editing these descriptors in line with the proposed guidelines and 

specifications, as outlined in this document. Completing this activity involves the following steps 

A-6 
Step 1.1: Review candidate performance descriptors and existing military performance 

taxonomies. Candidates to start from include 

• Army-wide performance dimensions and occupation/job-specific performance 

categories from the Army21 projects (PerformM21, NCO21, Select21, Army Class). 

• Task categories and job activities from the Army Task Questionnaire and Job Activity 

Questionnaire, respectively, from Project SYNVAL. 

• Performance dimensions from existing military performance models developed for 

the Army and the other Services (e.g., from Project A). 

• Task categories from relevant Army manuals and documents, in particular those 

focused on Army-wide technical and non-technical duties (e.g., Enlisted Soldier and 

Officer Common Task Lists; Leadership Manual).8

Step 1.2: Create an Excel Workbook to document the MD development process. Creation 

of the Workbook involves importing candidates (from Step 1.1) determined to be most useful 

and coding the selected performance descriptors so that the MDs generated can be tracked/linked 

back to the relevant source material. A useful strategy for narrowing down, or otherwise refining, 

the initial list of candidate performance descriptors is to crosswalk each set of descriptors against 

each other, eliminating redundancies as needed. 

Step 1.3: Divide the work so that each member of the Descriptor Development Team 

focuses on and is responsible for one of the three major categories, or types, of work activities 

(i.e., Occupation-Specific Technical; Non-Occupation Specific or Army-Wide Technical, NonTechnical). 

Step 1.4: Generate a first draft of MDs, reformatting and revising the candidate 

performance descriptors in line with the proposed guidelines and specifications, as outlined here, 

to ensure consistency in breadth, scope, and level of generality. As part of this step, the 

Descriptor Development Team should make an effort to identify Army-wide technical and nontechnical MDs potentially missing from the candidate performance descriptors and/or those 

requiring refinement. To do this, first reformat and revise the candidate performance descriptors 

already identified. Next, cross-walk this preliminary set of MDs for these targeted domains 

against (a) non-military, civilian work-related activities or performance taxonomies (e.g., 

Cunningham’s Occupational Analysis Inventory [OAI], O*NET Generalized Work Activities 

[GWAs] and Detailed Work Activities [DWAs]) and (b) existing taxonomies relevant to one or 

more targeted performance dimensions (specifically, organizational/peer support, teamwork, and 

leadership) from the I-O literature. Based on this crosswalk, add MDs to the preliminary 

taxonomy and/or revise existing ones, as needed. 

Step 1.5: Prepare the MD Workbook, ensuring that the MDs and documentation on all 

source materials, and so on, are included. When finished, post the Workbook to the designated 

folder on the S-drive. 

Activity 2. A Descriptor Review Team reviews preliminary taxonomy of MDs to ensure 

 

8

 The task statements from these manuals are likely to be useful for refining the task categories. 

A-7 
consistency with proposed guidelines and specifications and that the taxonomy provides 

sufficiently comprehensive coverage of the performance space. Descriptor Development Team 

implements recommended edits, as needed. 

Activity 3. Using the preliminary taxonomy of MDs, conduct a sorting exercise with the 

Descriptor Development Team comparable to that proposed for the SME workshops first 

outlined in the ACRP report (pp. 38-39). The purpose of this sorting exercise is twofold: (a) to 

identify additional refinements to the pool of Army-wide and non-technical MDs and (b) to 

identify and recommend potential candidates for elimination so that the pool of MDs can be 

reduced to about 50-100, if needed. In brief, the sorting exercise would consist of the following. 

First, sort the MD statements for the targeted domains into the O*NET GWAs and DWAs. Next, 

sort within the MD statements, maximizing the homogeneity of content within categories and 

minimizing overlap between categories. Finally, sort the drafted KWA categories (from 2-3 

MOS) into MD statements. A senior Descriptor Review Team member would facilitate this 

sorting exercise. 

Activity 4. The Expert Advisory Panel, high-level Army SMEs (e.g., members of ARI’s 

Army Testing Program Advisory Team [ATPAT]), and/or Army job analysts review the proposed 

pool of MDs and select metrics (i.e., scales). The purpose of this review is threefold: (a) to 

identify and recommend modifications and edits to the proposed pool of MDs, (b) to identify and 

recommend potential candidates for elimination, in particular any occupation-specific technical 

duties that are no longer relevant to Army, and (c) to identify and recommend possible additions 

to the pool of occupation-specific technical duties based on the Army’s existing occupational 

structure. At a minimum, the metrics would include scales assessing the frequency and 

importance of the MD to an occupation/job (e.g., the existing O*NET frequency and importance 

scales used when rating GWAs). The Descriptor Development Team implements edits, as 

needed. 

Activity 5. Conduct workshops with Army SMEs. The purpose of these workshops is to 

collected feedback and preliminary data on MDs from Army SMEs. 

Recommended Structure and Format for Key Work Activities (KWAs) 

As discussed, KWAs are categories and statements describing a series or cluster of 

related behaviors a Soldier (or Officer) performs to achieve a specific work objective. The 

following are recommendations for the format and structure of KWAs and are intended to serve 

as a guide when generating KWAs. 

• The total set of KWAs developed should be sufficiently comprehensive. That is, the set should 

include all of the important KWAs, technical and non-technical, and not simply constitute a 

sampling of representative KWAs required of Soldiers (or Officers). 

 

A-8 
• Statements should describe KWAs and not worker-oriented characteristics. KWAs should 

describe the work-related behaviors Soldiers (or Officers) must perform. KWAs should not 

describe occupation-specific knowledges and skills, personal qualities, or other workeroriented characteristics. The inclusion of these requirements in KWAs should be avoided. 

For example, the Army’s Soldier’s Manual of Common Tasks (STP 21-1-SMCT) 

(Department of the Army, 2006) includes the task: “Comply with the Law of War and the 

Geneva and Hague Conventions.” In part, “Law of War and the Geneva and Hague 

Conventions” reflects an Army-wide knowledge required for the successful performance of 

multiple tasks (e.g., treatment of prisoners, etc.). When generating KWAs, a separate listing 

of non-work activities should be made for future use in formulating relevant worker-oriented 

characteristics. 

• Statements should reflect important KWAs that are as objective, observable, and as fully 

specified as possible. That is, statements should lend themselves to measurement, either on 

an order-of-magnitude (quantitative) basis, or in terms of clearly observable and 

understandable criteria by which the presence or absence of the described KWA can be 

reliably assessed or evaluated. Doing this is important both for purposes of collecting job 

analysis data on these descriptors, as well as developing criterion measures. 

• Use behavioral homogeneity as a guide when generating KWAs to ensure that statements are 

at an appropriate level of generality (or specificity). KWAs should be slightly broader and 

more general than specific task statements, as currently found in the Army (e.g., Soldier 

Manuals, Officer Foundation Standards). A KWA should be written to encompass tasks or 

behaviors that collectively represent essentially the same activity, even though the type of 

equipment involved or the specific knowledge required could (and do) vary. That is, a KWA 

statement should represent a set, or cluster, of related behaviors reflecting the same 

underlying work activities. In the example below, the last statement includes too many 

heterogeneous behaviors, each reflecting different work activities. Specifically, “engage 

targets” refers to aiming and firing the weapon – an activity that typically takes place on the 

battlefield in support of offensive and/or defensive operations. “Maintaining a weapon (e.g., 

M-9 pistol” involves disassembling/assembling, cleaning, and lubricating parts – an activity 

that takes place off the battlefield. 

√ Maintain individual weapon 

√ Aim, track, and fire individual weapon at target 

√ Load, unload and correct malfunctions in individual weapon 

X Load, unload, engage targets, reduce stoppages, and maintain an M9 pistol 

Statements should avoid reference to specific weapons-equipment-tools (WETs). Those 

experienced with Army task statements know that the Soldier Manuals and training are not 

written in a manner that generalizes across specific pieces of equipment. Instead, there are 

typically separate tasks in the Soldier’s Manual representing every possible combination of 

activities (e.g., Load/unload) and specific WETs (e.g., M9 pistol, M16 Series Rifle). Our 

experience is that Army Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) sometimes react negatively to work 

activity statements that are devoid of WETs. To address this, KWAs should be written 

without making reference to specific WETs unless the specific WET is so integral to the 

A-9 
A-10 

work activity that it must remain in the KWA (e.g., reading a map). If that is not the case and 

there are multiple task statements all sharing essentially the same underlying work activity 

but each time referencing a different specific WET (e.g., different guns or weapons), make a 

separate list of specific WET(s) so that they can be cross referenced with the relevant KWAs 

later on. An example of this cross referencing appears on the next page (see Table 4). 

Eventually, the X’s in the table might be replaced with SME judgments about the frequency 

of the KWA by WET combination. In the KWA statement itself the specific WET should be 

referenced according to a WET categorization 

scheme to be defined (e.g., M9 pistol might be referenced as a “gun”; an M1-Abrams Tank 

as a “track vehicle”). 

• Statements should describe a complete and well-defined activity, making clear what is done, 

and, as appropriate, to what or for whom it is done. Each KWA statement should start with a 

clear action verb followed by a description of an object (a noun) specifying what or who is 

acted upon (e.g., write short memos, fire individual weapon, inspect electrical system). 

Consistent with an earlier recommendation, avoid multiple verbs that imply, or reflect, more 

than one type of activity and, potentially, differing work activities. Similarly, avoid verbs that 

are general or have multiple meanings (e.g., Does “operate weapon” mean “fire weapon” or 

“clean” or “load”?). Verbs conveying a concrete, definable activity are preferable to more 

abstract or complex verbs, which often leave the nature of the activity unclear or ambiguous. 

For example, “explain” is better than “consult”; “check,” “inspect,” or “review” are better 

than “ensure that”; other verbs that are often problematic in this way are “coordinate” and 

“determine,” which are usually unclear as to the nature of the activity. 

• Statements should use context (e.g., a clause specifying purpose, such as “to identify 

business problems and communications needs”) to clarify the behavior(s) when complex or 

vague verbs are unavoidable. For example, “Analyzes information on the situation to 

determine necessary changes in combat plans” is better than “Analyzes situational 

information.” That is, statements should not only make clear what is done, and, as 

appropriate, to what or for whom it is done, but for what purpose it is done as needed. 
Table 4. Example of Recommended Approaching for Handling Weapons-Equipment-Tools (WETs) 

Weapons-Equipment

KWAS FOR THE KWA CATEGORY: OPERATE INDIVIDUAL 

WEAPONS (PISTOLS, RIFLES, MACHINE GUNS, AND GRENADE 

LAUNCHERS) M9 Pistol 

Caliber 0 M2 Machine Gun 

M240B Machine Gun 

MK19 Machine Gun 

M136 Launcher 

M4 or M4A1 Carbine 

M16-Series Rifle 

M203 Grenade Launcher 

Select and prepare firing positions for individual weapons X X X X X X X X Mount and dismount sights and lights on individual weapon X X X X 

Mount and dismount machine guns on tripods X 

Construct field-expedient firing aids for individual weapon X 

Load, unload, and correct malfunctions for individual weapon X X X X X X X X 

Prepare a range card for a machine gun X X X 

Aim, track, and fire individual weapon at targets X X X X X X X X 

A-11
• Use standardized wording structure and consistent terminology. KWA statements should 

follow the same wording structure, as outlined in the two preceding bullets. When 

referencing the same object use the same term consistently throughout. For example, if a 

weapon maintained and operated by an individual Soldier (or Officer) is referred to as an 

“individual weapon”, that term should be used consistently. Avoid using alternative wording 

or terms (e.g., “assigned weapon” or “personal weapon”) for the same object unless truly 

referencing a new and different object.

• Statements should be as simple and concise as possible, without sacrificing meaning, and 

should not make use of occupation-specific jargon and acronyms. When writing KWA 

statements, compound and complex (hyphenated, slashed) word constructions (e.g., 

“Develop alternative/modified strategic/tactical plans...”) should be avoided. If the hyphen or 

slash means “or,” it is better to write “or”; if it means “and,” two statements may be 

warranted. Although the activity described in the KWA statements should be Army-specific, 

the language used should be “user-friendly” (i.e., free of jargon or complex terminology 

specific to that job or occupation). That is, statements should be simple but sufficiently 

descriptive of the activity performed such that an individual without specific training and/or 

tenure in the job or occupation can understand the requirement. For example, in the Soldier 

Common Task manual there is a task titled “Perform voice communications.” If one reads 

the task description, the actual activity consists of sending a short radio message.

√ Send a short radio message 

X Perform voice communications 

• Statements should be descriptive rather than evaluative. KWAs should be descriptive, not 

prescriptive or evaluative. For example, “Troubleshoot and correct malfunctions in fuel 

system” is appropriate. “Troubleshoot and correct malfunctions in fuel system in a manner 

that minimizes unneeded repairs and maintenance,” is not. 

√ Troubleshoot and correct malfunctions in fuel system 

X Troubleshoot and correct malfunctions in fuel system in a manner that 

minimizes unneeded repairs and maintenance 

• Statements should avoid the use of examples (e.g., xxx) to clarify the boundaries of similar 

activities. During the drafting of KWAs, the use of examples for purposes of delineating the 

differences across similar activities should be avoided. SMEs tend to pay a lot of attention to 

the “e.g.,s.”, shifting their focus away from the KWA. As much as feasible, differences 

across KWAs should be reflected in the statements themselves.

√ Perform basic first aid 

X Perform basic first aid (e.g., CPR, shock prevention, clear throat of 

casualty) 

X Perform first aid for injuries to extremities or limbs (e.g., put on field 

dressing, tourniquet, splint) 

A-12 
Proposed Steps and Procedure for Generating KWAs 

The following are the proposed steps and procedure for generating KWAs. At the end of 

this process there should be a set of KWA statements for 4-6 MOS, reflecting both technical and 

non-technical work activities, for use in workshops with proponent SMEs to formulate and 

calibrate a hierarchical work activities taxonomy linking these lower-order requirements to MDs, 

as well as the rules for doing so. The generation of KWAs (for an initial 2-3 MOS) will take 

place at the same time as the initial drafting of MDs, as described in the preceding sections. 

Activity 1. The Descriptor Development Team drafts KWA statements for each of the 

selected MOS in line with the recommended guidelines and specifications. Completing this 

activity for each MOS involves the following steps 

Step 1.1: Review available information on the MOS. Candidates to start from include 

• The performance categories and lower-order work activities from the Army21 

projects (PerformM21, Select21, Army Class). 

• Existing task categories and task statements for the selected MOS from relevant 

Army manuals and publications, in particular the most recent Soldier Manual and 

Trainer’s Guide (STPs) for Enlisted and Officer Foundation Standards (OFS) for 

Officers. 

• Existing lists of task statements for the selected MOS used in a recent job analysis 

survey by the ARI’s Occupational Analysis (OA) Program. 

Information on candidate descriptors can be found on HumRRO’s S-drive at: 

S:\Project\Army ONET\First Cycle Descriptor Development\Resources and Tools

Step 1.2: Create an Excel Workbook to document the KWA development process for that 

MOS. Creation of the Workbook involves importing existing information from Step 1.1 (e.g., 

task statements from the STP) and then coding the selected descriptors so that the KWAs 

generated can be tracked/linked back to the relevant source material. 

Step 1.3: Once this information has been imported and properly coded, create a 

spreadsheet within the Workbook for use in drafting KWAs. Label the spreadsheet, “KWAs.” 

Step 1.4: Sort tasks and other source material into preliminary categories. These initial 

categories (or first cut) should be fairly broad and are intended to help facilitate the creation and 

labeling of KWA categories (next step). 

Step 1.5: Starting with the preliminary categories from Step 1.3, generate and label KWA 

categories, using behavioral homogeneity as a guide. This is expected to be an iterative process, 

requiring multiple iterations of sorting and resorting, each time making progressively finer 

distinctions and refinements to categories previously generated. 

A-13 
Step 1.6: For each KWA category (from Step 1.5), generate KWA statements that 

encompass two or more tasks sharing the same underlying work activity, following the 

guidelines and specifications as outlined in this Blueprint. 

Step 1.7: During this process, create a separate listing of specific WETs. This will 

involve first determining whether the specific WET is (a) so integral to the work activity that it 

must remain in the KWA OR (b) should be extracted or summarized at a broader level because 

there are multiple requirements (e.g., task statements) all sharing essentially the same underlying 

work activity, but each time referencing a different specific WET (e.g., different guns or 

weapons). If (a), retain the KWA “as is.” If (b), list the specific WETs on a separate spreadsheet 

within the KWA Workbook labeled “WETs.” To facilitate the organization of the WETs, refer to 

the higher-order WET categories from the Master WETs Workbook, sorting the specific WET 

into the category that best describes it. Should it be needed, feel free to create new subcategories 

that describe related WETs at a lower level of detail than the higher-order categories in the 

Master WETs Workbook. Use this newly created subcategory or the higher-level category in the 

KWA statement. 

Step 1.8: Identify and generate non-technical KWA statements potentially missing from 

the preliminary KWA taxonomy using relevant source materials containing information on nontechnical work activities (e.g., Mission Training Plans [ARTEPS]). As before, import source 

materials determined to be useful into the Workbook, placing them in a separate spreadsheet. 

When reviewing the source materials, think about the non-technical requirements that are either 

(a) implied or (b) specifically stated in these materials. Should it be helpful, or should no existing 

source materials specific to the selected MOS be available, review and use the O*NET Work 

Context Questionnaire as a stimulus. Be sure to also review the existing KWAs and technical 

task statements (from Task 1.7), as possible non-technical requirements could be implied in one 

or more of these statements. 

Step 1.9: With the non-technical KWA statements (from Step 1.8), create non-technical 

KWA categories, again using behavioral homogeneity as a guide. Note this process is the 

opposite of the process for generating technical KWAs, and that is by design. 

Step 1.10: As with the WETs, when generating KWA statements, make note of 

requirements that are really occupation-specific KSs, and not work activities. Maintain a list of 

these on a separate spreadsheet. This information could be useful for generating occupationspecific KSs. Do not incorporate KSs into a KWA. 

Step 1.11: Review the Workbook, making sure that everything is properly coded and 

labeled. In particular, the final taxonomy of KWA categories and statements should each have a 

code associated with it. For KWA categories, the code should be as follows 

MOS, C (for “category”), a hyphen, then a two digit identifier, e.g., 

11BC-01 

11BC-02 

11BC-03... 

A-14 
For KWA statements, the code should be as follows 

MOS, a hyphen, the 2 digit KWA category code (from above), a hyphen, then a three 

digit identifier, e.g., 

11B-01-001 

11B-01-002 

11B-01-003 

When finished, post the Workbook containing the KWAs, documentation on all source 

materials, and so on, to the designated folder on the S-drive. 

Activity 2. A Descriptor Review Team reviews the draft KWA statements to ensure 

consistency with proposed guidelines and specifications and that the statements provide 

sufficient and reasonably comprehensive coverage of the performance space. Descriptor 

Development Team implements recommended edits, as needed. 

Activity 3. Conduct a sorting exercise comparable to that proposed for the SME 

workshops first outlined in the ACRP report (pp. 38-39) with the Descriptor Development Team 

using the draft KWA statements for each MOS. The purpose of this sorting exercise is twofold: 

(a) to identify and recommend possible modifications and refinements to the draft KWA 

statements for the selected MOS and (b) to generate a preliminary sorting, or multiple sortings 

reflecting differing levels of generality (or aggregation), of KWAs for Army SMEs to react to in 

the planned workshops. In brief, this sorting exercise will involve the following. First, sort the 

KWA statements into the preliminary taxonomy of MDs previously developed. Next, sort within 

the KWA statements, placing statements into categories that maximize homogeneity within a 

category and minimize overlap across categories. A senior member of the Descriptor Review 

Team will facilitate the sorting exercise. 

Activity 4. The Expert Advisory Panel, Army SMEs for that job (if available), and/or 

Army job analysts review the proposed pool of KWA statements, WETs, and select metric(s). The 

purpose of this review is threefold: (a) to identify and recommend modifications and edits to the 

draft KWA statements; (b) to identify and recommend potential candidates for elimination, if 

needed; and (c) to select metric(s) against which jobs can be rated on the draft KWA statements. 

At a minimum, the metrics would include scales assessing the frequency and importance of each 

KWA to an MOS (e.g., the existing O*NET frequency and importance scales used when rating 

GWAs). The Descriptor Development Team implements recommended edits, as needed.

Activity 5. Conduct workshops with Army SMEs from the targeted jobs. The purpose of 

these workshops is to collected feedback and preliminary data on the KWAs from Army SMEs. 

Recommendations and Specifications on Work Activity Metrics 

Accompanying the work activity descriptors are metrics (i.e., scales) by which Army 

occupations/jobs could be assessed on these same descriptors. At a minimum, these metrics 

should include generic, Likert-type scales measuring (a) the frequency with which a MD or 

A-15 
KWA is performed on the occupation/job and (b) the importance of the MD or KWA to the 

performance of the occupation/job. In particular, using the same, existing O*NET and Army job 

analysis scales, if available, of these dimensions (e.g., for the O*NET GWAs) would enable and 

facilitate comparisons between the prototype job descriptors and existing alternatives. 

Occupation-Specific Knowledges and Skills (KSs) 

Definitions 

Occupation-specific knowledges and skills (KSs) are descriptions of the developed 

knowledges and skills a Soldier (or Officer) needs to perform the core duties and work activities, 

technical and non-technical, required of an Army occupation or job, or cluster of occupations or 

jobs. In contrast to aptitudes, abilities, and other worker characteristics, occupation-specific KSs 

are acquired through some combination of education, training (on and off the job), and 

experience (i.e., they are trainable, to some degree). As implied by their definition, occupationspecific KSs are more occupation-specific than basic workplace and cross-functional KSs (e.g., 

basic math facility, critical thinking, oral and nonverbal comprehension, problem-solving, 

reading comprehension, social perceptiveness, written communication) which are required to at 

least some degree in a wide range of, if not virtually all, occupations/jobs. 

As with work activities, occupation-specific KSs could be defined at multiple levels of 

generality, arranged hierarchically according to well-defined rules. At a minimum, these 

requirements could be defined at, at least, two levels of generality, as outlined below 

Content Knowledges (CKs) represent labels and statements that describe a discrete and 

integrated body of declarative knowledge (e.g., subject area, discipline, trade, science) a 

Soldier (or Officer) must know to perform the core duties and work activities required of 

an Army occupation/job, or cluster of occupations/jobs. CKs facilitate the learning and 

acquisition of more specialized, and more process-oriented (i.e., procedural), knowledges 

and skills. Thus, CKs provide the basis for process-oriented KSs, as defined here (i.e., 

process-oriented KSs could be nested in, at some level, CKs). CKs are not intended to 

represent prerequisite knowledges that Soldiers must possess at the start of their technical 

training (e.g., AIT, OSUT). Rather, CKs represent knowledges that Soldiers develop and 

acquire as part of their technical training. CKs are typically technical in nature, but they 

could encompass non-technical (i.e., intra- and inter-personal) requirements as well. CKs 

could be defined at multiple levels of generality, independent of PKSs. 

The following are examples of CKs 

9 Computers and Electronics: Knowledge of electric circuit boards, processors, 

chips, and computer hardware and software. 

9 Geography: Knowledge of various methods for describing the location and 

distribution of land, sea, and air masses, including their physical locations, 

relationships, and characteristics. 

9 Medicine and Dentistry: Knowledge of the information and techniques needed 

to diagnose and treat injuries, diseases, and deformities. 

A-16 
Process-Oriented (Procedural) Knowledges and Skills (PKSs) represent statements that 

describe the knowledges and skills of the processes, operations, and procedures needed to 

perform the core duties and key work activities required of an Army occupation/job, or 

cluster of occupations/jobs. That is, PKSs describe a Soldier’s (or Officer’s) knowledge 

of what to do and how to do it. PKSs facilitate the performance of the core duties and key 

work activities a Soldier (or Officer) must perform in their occupation/job. Thus, they are 

more proximal than CKs to what a Soldier does, and, as appropriate, to what or to whom 

it is done. As with CKs, Process (Operational) KSs are typically technical in nature, but 

they could encompass non-technical (i.e., intra- and inter-personal) requirements as well. 

For example, a Soldier serving as a platoon leader would require PKSs of the team 

activities related to different mission types, the tactics for executing those activities, how 

to modify and improvise on those tactics as needed, and so on. 

In sum, whereas CKs are higher-order and facilitate the learning and acquisition of PKSs, 

PKSs are lower-order and more proximal to the Soldier’s (or Officer’s) work activities. At 

present, only CK descriptors will be developed, although PKSs could be added later. 

Objectives and Purposes to be Served 

CKs are intended to provide a common basis, or set of cross-descriptors, on which Army 

jobs could be rated or scaled for purposes of clustering jobs (i.e., to guide the sampling of Army 

jobs for criterion-related validation studies; to generalize, or transport, criterion-related validity 

estimates and predicted performance equations across jobs; to identify potential candidates for 

“mid-range” criterion measures, in particular knowledge tests). 

Recommended Structure and Format for Content Knowledges (CKs) 

As discussed, CKs represent labels and statements describing the developed capacities a 

Soldier (or Officer) needs to perform the core duties and work activities, technical and nontechnical, required of their Army occupation/job. The following are recommendations for the 

format and structure of Content Ks and are intended to serve as a guide in their generation. 

• The total set of CKs developed should be sufficiently comprehensive. That is, the set should 

include all of the important CKs and not simply constitute a sampling of representative CKs 

required of Soldiers (or Officers). 

• Statements should describe CKs and not work-related requirements and other worker 

characteristics. CKs should describe the declarative knowledges needed by Soldiers (or 

Officers) to perform the core duties and work activities required of their Army 

occupation/job. CKs should not describe work-related requirements (e.g., work activities) or 

other worker-oriented characteristics (e.g., interests/values/temperament). In particular, CKs 

should not be a translation of a KWA into an occupation-specific KS statement. 

• Statements should reflect important CKs that are as objective, observable, and as fully 

specified as possible. That is, CK statements should lend themselves to measurement, either 

A-17 
• Statements should describe a complete and well-defined CK, making clear what is known, 

and, as appropriate, for what purpose it is known or understood. CK statements should start 

with the clause “knowledge of,” followed by an object (noun), or set of objects (nouns), 

describing what is known. Avoid multiple nouns, or sets of nouns, which imply, or reflect, 

more than a single, well-defined body of declarative knowledge (e.g., subject area) needed 

for performance. 

√ Knowledge of basic electronics concepts and principles 

√ Knowledge of basic medical terminology and symbols 

X Knowledge of science 

X Knowledge of the proper clothing to wear and when 

• Statements should avoid reference to specific weapons, equipment, and tools. CK statements 

should be written without making reference to specific WETs. CKs are intended to reflect a 

higher-level of generality than specific WETs. 

• Use standardized wording structure and consistent terminology. CK statements should 

follow the same wording structure, as outlined in the preceding bullets. When referencing the 

same object use the same term consistently throughout. 

• Statements should be as simple and concise as possible, without sacrificing meaning. When 

writing CK statements, compound and complex (hyphenated, slashed) word constructions 

(e.g., “Understands weapon operation/service/repair manuals...”) should be avoided. If the 

hyphen or slash means “or,” it is better to write “or.” Alternatively, if it means “and,” two 

statements may be warranted. 

• Statements should be descriptive rather than evaluative. CKs should be descriptive, not 

prescriptive or evaluative. 

• Statements should avoid the use of examples (e.g., xxx) to clarify the boundaries of similar 

CKs. During the drafting of CK statements, the use of examples for purposes of delineating 

the differences across similar, and potentially related, CKs should be avoided. SMEs tend to 

pay a lot of attention to the “e.g.,s.”, shifting their focus away from the stem of the CK 

statement. As much as feasible, differences across CK statements should be reflected in the 

statements themselves.

A-18 
Proposed Steps and Procedure for Generating Content Knowledges (CKs) 

The following are the proposed steps and procedure for generating CK labels and 

statements. The output of this process will be a set of CKs for use in workshops with proponent 

SMEs. 

Activity 1. Starting with a pool of candidate descriptors, the Descriptor Development 

Team generates a preliminary taxonomy of CKs. Completing this activity involves the following 

steps 

Step 1.1: Review candidate CK descriptors and existing taxonomies from the nonmilitary, civilian sector. Candidates to start from include 

• O*NET Knowledges and Education Requirements taxonomies 

• OPM’s Technical Competencies taxonomy 

• Existing taxonomies of educational and instructional programs (e.g., from U.S. 

Department of Education) 

Where feasible, this information could be supplemented by a review of college and technical 

school course catalogs. 

Step 1.2: Create an Excel Workbook to document the CK development process. Creation 

of the Workbook involves importing candidates (from Step 1.1) determined to be most useful 

and coding the selected CK descriptors so that the CKs generated can be tracked/linked back to 

the relevant source material. A useful strategy for narrowing down, or otherwise refining, the 

initial list of candidate CK descriptors is to crosswalk each set of descriptors against each other, 

eliminating redundancies as needed. 

Step 1.3: Divide the work so that each member of the Descriptor Development Team 

focuses on and responsible for a cluster(s) of related CKs (e.g., according to major subject 

matter). 

Step 1.4: Generate a first draft of CKs. An important part of this step will involve 

customizing (some) preliminary taxonomy of CKs to the Army by crosswalking CKs with 

Army-specific information. To do this, first reformat and revise the candidate CK descriptors 

from the non-military, civilian sector in line with the proposed guidelines and specifications, as 

outlined here, to ensure consistency in breadth, scope, and level of generality. Next, crosswalk 

this preliminary taxonomy with the existing ASVAB test specifications (e.g., Oppler, Russell, 

Rosse, Keil, Meiman, & Welsh, 1997). Finally, crosswalk the preliminary taxonomy with the 

Army’s current Career Management Fields (CFMs). On the basis of these crosswalks, make 

revisions and/or refinements to the preliminary taxonomy, as needed. 

Step 1.5: Prepare the CK Workbook, ensuring that the CKs and documentation on all 

source materials, and so on, are included. When finished, post the Workbook to the designated 

folder on the S-drive. 

A-19 
Activity 2. A Descriptor Review Team reviews the preliminary CK taxonomy to ensure 

consistency with proposed guidelines and specifications and that the statements provide 

sufficient and reasonably comprehensive coverage of the domain. Descriptor Development Team 

implements recommended edits, as needed. 

Activity 3. Conduct a sorting exercise with the Descriptor Development Team using the 

preliminary CK taxonomy. The purpose of this sorting exercise is to identify and recommend 

possible modifications and refinements to the preliminary CK taxonomy. In brief, this sorting 

exercise will involve sorting the CKs into the MDs previously developed. A senior member of 

the Descriptor Review Team will facilitate the sorting exercise. 

Activity 4. The Expert Advisory Panel, high-level Army SMEs (if available), and Army job 

analysts review the preliminary CK taxonomy and select metric(s). The purpose of this review is 

threefold: (a) to identify and recommend modifications and edits to the preliminary CK 

taxonomy; (b) to identify and recommend potential candidates for elimination, if needed (e.g., 

CKs that are not relevant to the Army); and (c) to select metric(s) for ratings jobs on their CKs 

requirements. The Descriptor Development Team implements recommended edits, as needed. 

Activity 5. Conduct workshops with Army SMEs from the targeted jobs. The purpose of 

these workshops is to collected feedback and preliminary data on the KWAs from Army SMEs. 

Recommendations and Specifications on CKs Metrics 

Accompanying the CK descriptors are metrics (i.e., scales) by which Army 

occupations/jobs could be assessed on these same descriptors. At a minimum, these metrics 

should include generic, Likert-type scales measuring the importance of the CK to the 

performance of the occupation/job. In particular, using the existing O*NET Knowledge scales 

would enable and facilitate comparisons between the prototype job descriptors and existing 

alternatives. 

Work Interests, Values, and Styles 

Definitions 

Work interests, values, and styles are descriptions of enduring personal characteristics 

representing work-related preferences a Soldier (or Officer) needs to perform or to persist in an 

Army occupation or job, or cluster of occupations or jobs. Work interests describe a Soldier’s (or 

Officer’s) preferences for, or likes and dislikes, regarding specific work-related activities (e.g., 

performing physically-oriented work activities like running, jumping, lifting heavy objects, etc.). 

Work values describe a Soldier’s (or Officer’s) goals, beliefs, or ideals regarding specific workrelated requirements (e.g., working independently, performing a variety of activities, etc.). Work 

styles describe a Soldier’s (or Officer’s) behavioral tendencies, habits, or styles reflecting 

preferences for specific work-related requirements (e.g., working cooperatively with others, 

demonstrating initiative, etc.). 

A-20 
Objectives and Purposes to be Served 

 Like CKs, work interests, values, and styles are intended to provide a common basis, or 

set of cross-descriptors, on which Army jobs could be rated or scaled for purposes of clustering 

jobs (i.e., to guide the sampling of Army jobs for criterion-related validation studies; to 

generalize, or transport, criterion-related validity estimates and predicted performance equations 

across jobs; to identify potential candidates for “mid-range” criterion measures, in particular 

knowledge tests). 

Proposed Steps and Procedure for Generating Work Interests, Values, and Styles Descriptors 

The following are the proposed steps and procedure for generating work interests, values, 

and styles descriptors. The output of this process will be a set of work interests, values, and 

styles for use in job analysis workshops and questionnaires with proponent SMEs. 

Activity 1. Starting with a pool of candidate descriptors, the Descriptor Development 

Team generates preliminary taxonomies of work interests, values, and styles. Completing this 

activity involves the following steps 

Step 1.1: Review candidate work interests, values, and styles descriptors and existing 

taxonomies. Candidates to start from include: 

• The work interests, values, and styles taxonomies formulated and used as the basis for 

developing predictor measures for the Army21 projects (Perform21, Select21, Army 

Class) 

• O*NET Work Interests and Work Styles taxonomies 

Step 1.2: Create an Excel Workbook to document the work interests, values, and styles 

development process. Import candidate descriptors from Step 1.1 and then code the selected 

work interests, values, and styles descriptors so that they can be tracked or linked back to the 

relevant source material. 

Step 1.3: Generate an initial draft of work interests, values, and styles. A useful strategy 

for narrowing down, or otherwise refining, the initial list of candidate work 

interests/values/styles descriptors is to crosswalk each set of descriptors against each other, 

eliminating redundancies as needed. 

Step 1.4: Prepare the Work Interests/Values/Styles Workbook, ensuring that the final 

draft set of descriptors and documentation on all source materials, and so on, are included. When 

finished, post the Workbook to the designated folder on the S-drive. 

Activity 2. A Descriptor Review Team reviews the preliminary work interests, values and 

styles taxonomies to ensure consistency with proposed guidelines and specifications and that the 

statements provide sufficient and reasonably comprehensive coverage of the domain. Descriptor 

Development Team implements recommended edits, as needed. 

A-21 
Activity 3. Conduct a sorting exercise with the Descriptor Development Team using the 

preliminary work interests, values, and styles taxonomies. The purpose of this sorting exercise is 

to identify and recommend possible modifications and refinements to the preliminary work 

interests, values, and styles taxonomies. In brief, this sorting exercise will involve sorting the 

work interests, values, and styles into the MDs previously developed. A senior member of the 

Descriptor Review Team will facilitate the sorting exercise. 

Activity 4. The Expert Advisory Panel, high-level Army SMEs (if available), and Army job 

analysts review the preliminary work interests, values, and styles taxonomies and select 

metric(s). The purpose of this review is threefold: (a) to identify and recommend modifications 

and edits to the preliminary work interests, values, and styles taxonomies; (b) to identify and 

recommend potential candidates for elimination, if needed (e.g., work interests/values/styles that 

are not relevant to the Army); and (c) to select metric(s) for ratings jobs on the chosen 

descriptors. The Descriptor Development Team implements recommended edits, as needed. 

Activity 5. Conduct workshops with Army SMEs from the targeted jobs. The purpose of 

these workshops is to collected feedback and preliminary data on the work interests, values, and 

styles from Army SMEs. 

Recommendations and Specifications on Work Interests/Values/Styles Metrics 

Accompanying the work interests/values/styles descriptors are metrics (i.e., scales) on 

which Army occupations or jobs could be rated or scaled. At a minimum, these metrics should 

include Likert-type scales measuring the importance of the work interest/value/style to the Army 

occupation/job. 

Abilities and Aptitudes 

Definitions 

Abilities and aptitudes are descriptions of enduring personal characteristics that enable a 

Soldier (or Officer) to perform the mental, spatial, physical, and physiological requirements 

underlying the core duties and work activities, technical and non-technical, required of an Army 

occupation or job, or cluster of occupations or jobs. 

Objectives and Purposes to be Served 

Like CKs and other work interests/values/styles, abilities and aptitudes are intended to 

provide a common basis, or set of cross-descriptors, on which Army jobs could be rated or scaled 

for purposes of clustering jobs (i.e., to guide the sampling of Army jobs for criterion-related 

validation studies; to generalize, or transport, criterion-related validity estimates and predicted 

performance equations across jobs; to identify potential candidates for “mid-range” criterion 

measures, in particular knowledge tests). 

 

A-22 
Proposed Steps and Procedure for Generating Abilities and Aptitudes Descriptors 

The following are the proposed steps and procedure for generating abilities and aptitudes 

descriptors. The output of this process will be a set of abilities and aptitudes descriptors for use 

in job analysis workshops and questionnaires with proponent SMEs. 

Activity 1. Starting with a pool of candidate descriptors, the Descriptor Development 

Team generates a preliminary taxonomy of abilities and aptitudes. Completing this activity 

involves the following steps 

Step 1.1: Review the O*NET Ability taxonomy. The O*NET Ability taxonomy 

represents a comprehensive and well-researched taxonomy of abilities and aptitudes required of 

most, if not all, occupations or jobs. 

Step 1.2: Create an Excel Workbook to document the abilities and aptitudes taxonomy 

development process. Import O*NET Ability descriptors and then code them so that they can be 

tracked or linked back to the relevant source material, as needed. 

Step 1.3: Refine or modify the O*NET Ability taxonomy, as needed. Cross-walk the 

O*NET Ability taxonomy against more recent ability and aptitude taxonomies, eliminating 

redundancies as needed. 

Step 1.4: Prepare the Abilities and Aptitudes Workbook, ensuring that the final draft set 

of descriptors and documentation on all source materials, and so on, are included. When finished, 

post the Workbook to the designated folder on the S-drive. 

Activity 2. A Descriptor Review Team reviews the preliminary abilities and aptitudes 

taxonomy to ensure consistency with proposed guidelines and specifications and that the 

statements provide sufficient and reasonably comprehensive coverage of the domain. Descriptor 

Development Team implements recommended edits, as needed. 

Activity 3. Conduct a sorting exercise with the Descriptor Development Team using the 

preliminary abilities and aptitudes taxonomy. The purpose of this sorting exercise is to identify 

and recommend possible modifications and refinements to the preliminary abilities and aptitudes 

taxonomy. In brief, this sorting exercise will involve mapping the abilities and aptitudes 

descriptors to the MDs previously developed. A senior member of the Descriptor Review Team 

will facilitate the sorting exercise. 

Activity 4. The Expert Advisory Panel, high-level Army SMEs (if available), and Army job 

analysts review the preliminary abilities and aptitudes taxonomies and select metric(s). The 

purpose of this review is threefold: (a) to identify and recommend modifications and edits to the 

preliminary abilities and aptitudes taxonomy; (b) to identify and recommend potential candidates 

for elimination, if needed (e.g., abilities and aptitudes that are not relevant to the Army); and (c) 

to select metric(s) for ratings jobs on the final set of abilities and aptitudes descriptors. The 

Descriptor Development Team implements recommended edits, as needed. 

A-23 
A-24 

Activity 5. Conduct workshops with Army SMEs from the targeted jobs. The purpose of 

these workshops is to collected feedback and preliminary data on the abilities and aptitudes from 

Army SMEs. 

Recommendations and Specifications on Abilities and Aptitudes Metrics 

Accompanying the abilities and aptitudes descriptors are metrics (i.e., scales) on which 

Army occupations or jobs could be rated or scaled. At a minimum, these metrics should include 

Likert-type scales measuring the importance of the ability or aptitude to the Army 

occupation/job. 
Appendix B 

Description and Layout of the Relational Database 

 

B-1 
Overview of the Database Design

The database developed for this project was designed as a relational database, consisting 

of a series of reference and data tables linked by unique identifiers associated with an Army job 

and the descriptor domain being sampled.9 The database’s primary objective, near term, is to 

systematically store ratings data collected using the prototype approach across five domains – (a) 

Work Activities, (b) Occupation Specific Knowledge and Skills, (c) Work Context, (d) Work 

Interests, Values and Styles, and (e) Aptitudes and Abilities. Over time, a user interface could be 

developed that allows for easy reporting and editing capabilities. 

Reference Tables 

 The following tables contain reference data that will be used across domain. 

* indicates a field used in the Primary Key. 

 ** indicates a field used in a secondary index. 

JOB_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

JOB_ID** Integer 2 Unique auto generated ID for each job. 

MOS_ID* Varchar 3 From MOS_REF 

SKILL_LVL_ID* Tinyint 1 From SKILL_LVL_REF 

DUTY_POS_ID* Varchar 5 From DUTY_POS_REF 

ASSIGNMENT_ID* Varchar 5 From ASSIGNMENT_REF 

MOS_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

MOS_ID* Varchar 7 Unique ID for each MOS 

MOS_TITLE Varchar 80 Title of MOS 

CMF_ID Varchar 2 From CMF_REF 

APT_CLUSTER_ID Varchar 2 From APT_CLUSTER_REF 

CMF_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

CMF_ID* Varchar 6 Unique ID for each CMF 

CMF_TITLE Varchar 80 Title of CMF 

APT_CLUSTER_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

APT_CLUSTER_ID* Varchar 6 Unique ID for each Aptitude Area Cluster 

APT_TITLE Varchar 80 Title of Aptitude Area Cluster 

 

9

 A “job” can be defined by any combination of the following: (a) MOS, (b) Skill Level, (c) Duty Position, or (d) 

Assignment. 

B-2 
SKILL_LVL_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

SKILL_LVL_ID* Tinyint 12 Unique ID for each Skill Level (1-5) 

SKILL_LVL_TITLE Varchar 80 Skill Level Title 

DUTY_POS_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

DUTY_POS_ID* Varchar 5 Unique ID for each Duty Position 

DUTY_POS_TITLE Varchar 80 Duty Position Title 

ASSIGNMENT_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

ASSIGNMENT_ID* Varchar 5 Unique ID for each Assignment 

ASSIGNMENT_TITLE Varchar 80 Assignment Title 

METRIC_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

METRIC_DOM_ID* Small Int 2 

Unique ID for each Metric 

Category/Value/Domain 

METRIC_VALUE* Varchar 1 Value for a particular Metric (i.e. 1-7) 

METRIC_DESC Varchar 20 

Description of Metric Value (i.e. Very 

Important) 

METRIC x DOMAIN 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

METRIC_DOM_ID** Small Int 2 

Unique ID for each Metric Category x 

Domain 

METRIC_CAT_ID* Small Int 2 Unique ID for Each Metric Category 

DOMAIN_ID* Varchar 4 Domain ID from DOMAIN_REF table. 

DOMAIN_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

DOMAIN_ID* Varchar 4 Unique ID for each Domain 

DOMAIN_TITLE Varchar 50 Domain Title 

METRIC_CAT_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

METRIC_CAT_ID* Small Int 2 Unique ID for Each Metric Category 

B-3 
METRIC_CATEGORY Varchar 12 Metric Category (Frequency, Importance)

RATER_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

RATER_ID* Tiny Int 1 Unique ID for Each Rater Type. 

RATER_DESC Varchar 60 Rater Type (Overall, Supervisor, Incumbent)

Work Activities 

The following tables describe the way work activity data will be stored. 

MD_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

MD_ID* Varchar 6 Unique identifier for Major Duty 

MD_TITLE Varchar 80 MD title 

MD_DESCRIPTION Varchar 255 MD Description 

MD_CAT_ID Varchar 9 From MD_CAT_REF 

MD_CAT_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

MD_CAT_ID* Varchar 9 Unique identifier for Major Duty Category 

MD_CAT_TITLE Varchar 50 

Job-specific tech, non-job specific tech, 

non-tech 

KWAC_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

KWAC_ID* Varchar 8 Unique identifier for Key Work Activity Category 

KWAC_DESC Varchar 200 Description of KWAC 

MD x KWAC 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

MD_ID* Varchar 6 Unique identifier, From MD_REF 

KWAC_ID* Varchar 8 Unique identifier, From KWAC_REF 

KWAS_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

KWAS_ID* Varchar 10 Unique identifier for Key Work Activity Statement

KWAS_DESC Varchar 150 Description of KWAS 

B-4 
SOURCE_CD Varchar 50 Source Code 

SOURCE_STMT Varchar 150 Source Statement 

SOURCE_STMT_DT Date 8 Effective date of source statement 

KWAC_ID Varchar 8 

From KWAC_ID; Key Work Activity Code KWAS 

is associated with 

JOB x MD 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

JOB_ID* Integer 2 From JOB_REF 

MD_ID* Varchar 6 From MD_REF 

METRIC_DOM_ID* Small Int 2 From METRIC_REF; Metric Category 

METRIC_SIZE Small Int 2 Sample Size for this metric. 

METRIC_MEAN Double 8 Mean for this metric. 

METRIC_ICC1 Double 8 Intraclass Correlation 1 

METRIC_ICC2 Double 8 Intraclass Correlation 2 

METRIC_STD Double 8 Standard Deviation for this metric 

RATER_ID* Tiny Int 1 From RATER_REF table 

METRIC_STAT1 Double 8 Place Holder 

METRIC_STAT2 Double 8 Place Holder 

METRIC_DT* Date 8 Date metric calculated 

METRIC_MEDIAN Double 8 Median for this Metric 

METRIC_SKEWNESS Double 8 Skewness for this Metric 

JOB x KWAC 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

JOB_ID* Integer 2 From JOB_REF 

KWAC_ID* Varchar 8 From KWAC_REF 

METRIC_DOM_ID* Small Int 2 From METRIC_REF; Metric Category 

METRIC_SIZE Small Int 2 Size for this metric. 

METRIC_MEAN Double 8 Mean for this metric. 

METRIC_ICC1 Double 8 Intraclass Correlation 1 

METRIC_ICC2 Double 8 Intraclass Correlation 2 

METRIC_STD Double 8 Standard Deviation for this metric 

RATER_ID* Tiny Int 1 From RATER_REF table 

METRIC_STAT1 Double 8 Place Holder 

METRIC_STAT2 Double 8 Place Holder 

METRIC_DT* Date 8 Date metric calculated 

METRIC_MEDIAN Double 8 Median for this Metric 

METRIC_SKEWNESS Double 8 Skewness for this Metric 

B-5 
 

B-6 
JOB x KWAS 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

JOB_ID* Integer 2 From JOB_REF 

KWAS_ID* Varchar 10 From KWAS_REF 

METRIC_DOM_ID* Small Int 2 From METRIC_REF; Metric Category 

METRIC_SIZE Small Int 2 Size for this metric. 

METRIC_MEAN Double 8 Mean for this metric. 

METRIC_ICC1 Double 8 Intraclass Correlation 1 

METRIC_ICC2 Double 8 Intraclass Correlation 2 

METRIC_STD Double 8 Standard Deviation for this metric 

RATER_ID* Tiny Int 1 From RATER_REF table 

METRIC_STAT1 Double 8 Place Holder 

METRIC_STAT2 Double 8 Place Holder 

METRIC_DT* Date 8 Date metric calculated 

METRIC_MEDIAN Double 8 Median for this Metric 

METRIC_SKEWNESS Double 8 Skewness for this Metric 

WET_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

WET_ID* Varchar 4 Unique ID for WET, this is the FSC Code. 

WET_DESC Varchar 100 Description of WET 

JOB x WET 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

JOB_ID* Integer 2 From JOB_REF 

KWAS_ID* Varchar 10 From KWAS_REF 

WET_ID* Varchar 4 From WET_REF 

METRIC_DOM_ID* Small Int 2 From METRIC_REF; Metric Category 

METRIC_SIZE Small Int 2 Size for this metric. 

METRIC_MEAN Double 8 Mean for this metric. 

METRIC_ICC1 Double 8 Intraclass Correlation 1 

METRIC_ICC2 Double 8 Intraclass Correlation 2 

METRIC_STD Double 8 Standard Deviation for this metric 

RATER_ID* Tiny Int 1 From RATER_REF table 

METRIC_STAT1 Double 8 Place Holder 

METRIC_STAT2 Double 8 Place Holder 

METRIC_DT* Date 8 Date metric calculated 

METRIC_MEDIAN Double 8 Median for this Metric 

METRIC_SKEWNESS Double 8 Skewness for this Metric 

 

B-7 
Occupation Specific Knowledges and Skills 

 The following tables describe the data to be collected and stored under the Occupation 

Specific Knowledges and Skills domain. 

CK_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

CK_ID* Varchar 8 Unique identifier for Content Knowledges (CK)

CK_TITLE Varchar 80 Title of CK 

CK_DESC Varchar 255 Description of CK 

CK_CAT_ID Varchar 2 From CK_CAT_REF 

CK_CAT_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

CK_CAT_ID* Varchar 2 Unique identifier for CK Categories. 

CK_CAT_TITLE Varchar 50 CK Category Titles 

JOB x CK 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

JOB_ID* Integer 2 From JOB_REF 

CK_ID* Varchar 8 From CK_REF 

METRIC_DOM_ID* Small Int 2 From METRIC_REF; Metric Category 

METRIC_SIZE Small Int 2 Size for this metric. 

METRIC_MEAN Double 8 Mean for this metric. 

METRIC_ICC1 Double 8 Intraclass Correlation 1 

METRIC_ICC2 Double 8 Intraclass Correlation 2 

METRIC_STD Double 8 Standard Deviation for this metric 

RATER_ID* Tiny Int 1 From RATER_REF table 

METRIC_STAT1 Double 8 Place Holder 

METRIC_STAT2 Double 8 Place Holder 

METRIC_DT* Date 8 Date metric calculated 

METRIC_MEDIAN Double 8 Median for this Metric 

METRIC_SKEWNESS Double 8 Skewness for this Metric 

 

B-8 
Work Context 

 The following tables describe the data to be collected and stored under the Work Context 

domain. 

WORK_CONTEXT_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

WORK_CONT_ID* Varchar 8 Unique identifier for Work Context 

WORK_CONT_TITLE Varchar 80 Title of Work Context 

WORK_CONT_DESC Varchar 255 Description of Work Context 

WORK_CONT_CAT_ID Varchar 2 From WORK_CONTEXT_CAT_REF 

WORK_CONTEXT_CAT_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

WORK_CONT_CAT_ID* Varchar 9 

Unique Identifier for Work Context 

Categories 

WORK_CONT_CAT_TITLE Varchar 50 Work Context Category Title. 

JOB x WORK_CONTEXT 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

JOB_ID* Integer 2 From JOB_REF 

WORK_CONT_ID* Varchar 8 From WORK_CONTEXT_REF 

METRIC_DOM_ID* Small Int 2 From METRIC_REF; Metric Category 

METRIC_SIZE Small Int 2 Size for this metric. 

METRIC_MEAN Double 8 Mean for this metric. 

METRIC_ICC1 Double 8 Intraclass Correlation 1 

METRIC_ICC2 Double 8 Intraclass Correlation 2 

METRIC_STD Double 8 Standard Deviation for this metric 

RATER_ID* Tiny Int 1 From RATER_REF table 

METRIC_STAT1 Double 8 Place Holder 

METRIC_STAT2 Double 8 Place Holder 

METRIC_DT* Date 8 Date metric calculated 

METRIC_MEDIAN Double 8 Median for this Metric 

METRIC_SKEWNESS Double 8 Skewness for this Metric 

B-9 
Work Interests, Values, and Styles 

 The following tables describe the data to be collected and stored under the Work 

Interests, Values, and Styles domain. 

INT_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

INT_ID* Varchar 8 Unique identifier for Interest/Values/Style 

INT_TITLE Varchar 80 Title of Interest/Values/Style 

INT_DESC Varchar 255 Description of Interest/Values/Style 

INT_CAT_ID Varchar 2 From INT_CAT_REF 

INT_CAT_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

INT_CAT_ID* Varchar 2 Unique ID for Interest/Values/Style Category 

INT_CAT_TITLE Varchar 50 Interest/Values/Style Category Title 

JOB x INT 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

JOB_ID* Integer 2 From JOB_REF 

INT_ID* Varchar 8 From INT_REF 

METRIC_DOM_ID* Small Int 2 From METRIC_REF; Metric Category 

METRIC_SIZE Small Int 2 Size for this metric. 

METRIC_MEAN Double 8 Mean for this metric. 

METRIC_ICC1 Double 8 Intraclass Correlation 1 

METRIC_ICC2 Double 8 Intraclass Correlation 2 

METRIC_STD Double 8 Standard Deviation for this metric 

RATER_ID* Tiny Int 1 From RATER_REF table 

METRIC_STAT1 Double 8 Place Holder 

METRIC_STAT2 Double 8 Place Holder 

METRIC_DT* Date 8 Date metric calculated 

METRIC_MEDIAN Double 8 Median for this Metric 

METRIC_SKEWNESS Double 8 Skewness for this Metric 

 

B-10 
B-11 

Abilities and Aptitudes 

 The following tables describe the data to be collected and stored under the Abilities and 

Aptitudes domain. 

APT_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

APT_ID* Varchar 8 Unique identifier for Aptitudes and Abilities 

APT_TITLE Varchar 80 Title for Aptitudes and Abilities 

APT_DESC Varchar 255 Description for Aptitudes and Abilities 

APT_CAT_ID Varchar 2 From APT_CAT_REF 

APT_CAT_REF 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

APT_CAT_ID* Varchar 6 Unique ID for Aptitudes and Ability Category. 

APT_CAT_TITLE Varchar 50 Aptitudes and Ability Category Title. 

JOB x APT 

Field Name Type Length Field Description 

JOB_ID* Integer 2 From JOB_REF 

APT_ID* Varchar 8 From APT_REF 

METRIC_DOM_ID* Small Int 2 From METRIC_REF; Metric Category 

METRIC_SIZE Small Int 2 Size for this metric. 

METRIC_MEAN Double 8 Mean for this metric. 

METRIC_ICC1 Double 8 Intraclass Correlation 1 

METRIC_ICC2 Double 8 Intraclass Correlation 2 

METRIC_STD Double 8 Standard Deviation for this metric 

RATER_ID* Tiny Int 1 From RATER_REF table 

METRIC_STAT1 Double 8 Place Holder 

METRIC_STAT2 Double 8 Place Holder 

METRIC_DT* Date 8 Date metric calculated 

METRIC_MEDIAN Double 8 Median for this Metric 

METRIC_SKEWNESS Double 8 Skewness for this Metric 
B-12 
Appendix C 

Work Activities Questionnaires 

 

C-1 
Army Work Activities Questionnaire 

11B Infantryman 

Instructions 

The purpose of this questionnaire is to find out about the work activities performed by first-term 

Soldiers in your MOS. As you complete this questionnaire, consider the typical first-term Soldier 

in your MOS who is at Skill Level 1 (SL1) and who has completed at least one year of duty in a 

typical unit assignment and position and at least one series of Green-Amber-Red training cycles 

and unit operational requirements. 

This questionnaire consists of a series of work activities describing what first-term Soldiers in 

your MOS do, to whom or what it is done, and potentially for what purpose it is done. For 

example: 

Operate radio communications equipment. 

For each work activity, you will be asked to make three ratings. 

The first involves rating each work activity in terms of its importance to the job of first-term 

Soldiers in your MOS. You will use the following scale to make this rating: 

Not Important 

Somewhat 

Important Important Very Important 

Extremely 

Important 

1 2 3 4 5 

The second involves rating each work activity in terms of how difficult it is for first term Soldiers in 

your MOS to learn to perform the activity to standard through classroom training. You will use the 

following scale to make this rating:

Very Easy to 

Learn 

Somewhat Easy 

to Learn 

Neither Easy 

nor Difficult to 

Learn 

Somewhat 

Difficult to 

Learn 

Very Difficult to 

Learn 

1 2 3 4 5 

C-2 
The third involves rating each work activity in terms of how serious the negative consequences 

would be for the Soldier’s unit or the unit’s mission if a first-term Soldier in your MOS failed to 

successfully perform the activity. You will use the following scale to make this rating: 

Not Serious 

Somewhat 

Serious Serious Very Serious 

Extremely 

Serious 

1 2 3 4 5 

You will complete this set of ratings twice. You will first rate all of the individual work 

activities. You will then rate the higher-level categories these work activities fall under.

C-3 
Part 1 – Individual Work Activities 

No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

A Operate and maintain firearms and personal weapons (e.g., 

grenade launchers, grenades). 

1 Select and prepare firing positions for firearms and personal 

weapons (e.g., grenade launchers, grenades). 

2 Mount and dismount sights, lights, and other accessories on firearms 

and personal weapons (e.g., grenade launchers, grenades). 

3 Mount and dismount machine guns or other personal weapons on 

tripods. 

4 Construct field-expedient firing aids for firearms and personal weapons. 

5 Load, unload, and correct malfunctions in firearms and personal 

weapons. 

6 Aim, track, and fire firearms or personal weapons at targets, 

stationary or moving. 

7 Coordinate the firing of firearms or personal weapons with the 

actions or movement of others. 

8 Perform routine maintenance checks and services on firearms and 

personal weapons. 

9 Troubleshoot firearm and personal weapon malfunctions and 

misfires. 

B Operate and maintain armored vehicle-mounted weapons (e.g., 

machine guns, rocket launchers). 

10 Mount and dismount weapon (e.g., machine gun, rocket launcher) on 

armored vehicle. 

11 Load, unload, and correct malfunctions in armored vehicle-mounted 

weapon (e.g., machine gun, rocket launcher). 

12 Aim, track, and fire armored vehicle-mounted weapon at targets, 

stationary or moving. 

13 Coordinate the firing of armored vehicle-mounted weapon with the 

actions or movement of others. 

14 Perform routine maintenance checks and services on vehiclemounted weapon. 

15 Troubleshoot vehicle-mounted weapon malfunctions and misfires. 

C Engage in close combat or self-defense. 

17 Engage enemy in hand. 

18 Engage or defend self against enemy with bayonet or other hand. 

D Navigate and move in the field. 

19 Determine the direction or location of self and others (friendly or 

foe), with or without the aid of maps or other navigational 

equipment (e.g., compass, GPS). 

20 Navigate from point to point using maps and navigational equipment 

(e.g., compass, GPS), day or night. 

21 Camouflage or hide self and equipment to avoid detection. 

22 Practice noise, light, and litter discipline to conceal movement or 

location. 

23 Move self, weapons, gear, or equipment through the field and 

around obstacles (natural or man-made), under fire, day or night. 

C-4 
No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

24 Locate, recover, and neutralize antipersonnel mines or other 

unexploded ordinance. 

25 React to counterattack, ambush, or other defensive combat situations 

during movement. 

E Drive and maintain armored wheeled and tracked vehicles. 

26 Prepare armored wheeled and tracked vehicles for mission. 

27 Drive armored wheeled vehicles alone or in a convoy on a tactical or 

non-tactical mission. 

28 Drive armored tracked vehicle alone or in a convoy on a tactical or 

non-tactical mission. 

29 Perform routine maintenance checks and services on armored 

wheeled or tracked vehicle. 

F Recover and tow armored wheeled and tracked vehicles. 

30 Recover disabled armored vehicle (wheeled or tracked) in the field 

using available resources and equipment. 

31 Prepare and tow disabled armored vehicle (wheeled or tracked) 

using standard equipment and vehicles. 

G Set-up, operate, and maintain secure communications equipment. 

32 Set-up and install secure ground and mobile communications equipment 

(e.g., ground and airborne radios, tactical telephones). 

33 Operate ground and mobile communications equipment (e.g., ground 

and airborne radios, tactical telephones). 

34 Perform routine maintenance checks and services on mobile 

communications equipment (e.g., ground and airborne radios, 

tactical telephones). 

35 Troubleshoot mobile communications equipment (e.g., ground and 

airborne radios, tactical telephones). 

36 Identify and respond to an electronic attack and other security threats 

to a secure communications network. 

37 Encode and decode messages delivered over secure ground and 

mobile communications equipment (e.g., ground and airborne 

radios, tactical telephones). 

H Protect against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear 

(CBRN) attacks or hazards. 

38 Prepare for or react to a CBRN attack or hazard by protecting self 

and others using appropriate gear or equipment. 

39 Detect, monitor, or measure CBRN agents or levels. 

40 Decontaminate self or equipment using decontamination kits. 

I Perform first aid and treat casualties. 

41 Evaluate a casualty's vital signs, status, and severity of their injuries 

(e.g., blood loss, shock). 

42 Perform CPR, prevent shock, clear the throat of a casualty, or 

perform other basic first aid. 

43 Perform first aid for an open wound or other injuries (e.g., burns, 

bone fractures) received during combat. 

44 Perform first aid for an open wound or other injuries (e.g., burns, 

bone fractures) received in a non-combat situation. 

45 Perform first aid for a CBRN casualty. 

C-5 
No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

J Evacuate casualties or remains. 

46 Administer an IV and stabilize casualty for transport. 

47 Transport a casualty, on foot or using a vehicle or other transport 

equipment. 

48 Request a medical evacuation. 

49 Recover, evacuate, or inter remains. 

K Set-up, operate, and maintain secure communications equipment. 

50 Set-up and install secure ground and mobile communications equipment 

(e.g., ground and airborne radios, tactical telephones). 

51 Operate ground and mobile communications equipment (e.g., ground 

and airborne radios, tactical telephones). 

52 Perform routine maintenance checks and services on mobile 

communications equipment (e.g., ground and airborne radios, 

tactical telephones). 

53 Troubleshoot mobile communications equipment (e.g., ground and 

airborne radios, tactical telephones). 

54 Identify and respond to an electronic attack and other security threats 

to a secure communications network. 

55 Encode and decode messages delivered over secure ground and 

mobile communications equipment (e.g., ground and airborne 

radios, tactical telephones). 

L Guard, search, and monitor detainees or prisoners. 

56 Guard or protect detainees or prisoners. 

57 Search detainees or prisoners for weapons or prohibited items. 

58 Restrain or subdue detainees or prisoners using the appropriate level 

of force. 

59 Monitor detainee or prisoner activity. 

60 Escort detainees or prisoners to a new location, inside or outside a 

detainment or corrections facility. 

M Guard, search, or patrol areas or locations. 

61 Guard or patrol an assigned area(s) or location(s). 

62 Search an area or location for a person(s) or object(s). 

63 Obtain information from the general public or potential witnesses on 

suspicious activity in area or location. 

64 Apprehend, search, and detain a person(s) for suspicious activity. 

65 Restrain or subdue a person(s) using the appropriate level of force. 

66 Defuse a situation(s) using interpersonal skills. 

N Guard and control vehicle and pedestrian traffic. 

67 Guard or patrol key access points or entrances to restricted areas 

(e.g., dismount points, roadblocks, or checkpoints). 

68 Search or inspect vehicles or persons for explosive devices or 

prohibited items. 

69 Direct or control vehicle or pedestrian traffic. 

70 Monitor vehicle or pedestrian traffic for suspicious activity. 

71 Direct or control the behavior of groups or crowds of noncombatants, under emergency and non-emergency conditions. 

C-6 
Part 2 – Work Activity Categories 

No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

A Operate and maintain firearms and personal weapons (e.g., 

grenade launchers, grenades). 

1 Select and prepare firing positions for firearms and personal 

weapons (e.g., grenade launchers, grenades). 

2 Mount and dismount sights, lights, and other accessories on firearms 

and personal weapons (e.g., grenade launchers, grenades). 

3 Mount and dismount machine guns or other personal weapons on 

tripods. 

4 Construct field-expedient firing aids for firearms and personal 

weapons. 

5 Load, unload, and correct malfunctions in firearms and personal 

weapons. 

6 Aim, track, and fire firearms or personal weapons at targets, 

stationary or moving. 

7 Coordinate the firing of firearms or personal weapons with the 

actions or movement of others. 

8 Perform routine maintenance checks and services on firearms and 

personal weapons. 

9 Troubleshoot firearm and personal weapon malfunctions and 

misfires. 

B Operate and maintain armored vehicle-mounted weapons 

(e.g., machine guns, rocket launchers). 

10 Mount and dismount weapon (e.g., machine gun, rocket launcher) 

on armored vehicle. 

11 Load, unload, and correct malfunctions in armored vehiclemounted weapon (e.g., machine gun, rocket launcher). 

12 Aim, track, and fire armored vehicle-mounted weapon at targets, 

stationary or moving. 

13 Coordinate the firing of armored vehicle-mounted weapon with 

the actions or movement of others. 

14 Perform routine maintenance checks and services on vehiclemounted weapon. 

15 Troubleshoot vehicle-mounted weapon malfunctions and misfires. 

C Engage in close combat or self-defense. 

17 Engage enemy in hand. 

18 Engage or defend self against enemy with bayonet or other hand. 

D Navigate and move in the field. 

19 Determine the direction or location of self and others (friendly or 

foe), with or without the aid of maps or other navigational 

equipment (e.g., compass, GPS). 

20 Navigate from point to point using maps and navigational 

equipment (e.g., compass, GPS), day or night. 

21 Camouflage or hide self and equipment to avoid detection. 

22 Practice noise, light, and litter discipline to conceal movement or 

location. 

23 Move self, weapons, gear, or equipment through the field and 

around obstacles (natural or man-made), under fire, day or night. 

C-7 
No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

24 Locate, recover, and neutralize antipersonnel mines or other 

unexploded ordinance. 

25 React to counterattack, ambush, or other defensive combat 

situations during movement. 

E Drive and maintain armored wheeled and tracked vehicles. 

26 Prepare armored wheeled and tracked vehicles for mission. 

27 Drive armored wheeled vehicles alone or in a convoy on a tactical 

or non-tactical mission. 

28 Drive armored tracked vehicle alone or in a convoy on a tactical or 

non-tactical mission. 

29 Perform routine maintenance checks and services on armored 

wheeled or tracked vehicle. 

F Recover and tow armored wheeled and tracked vehicles. 

30 Recover disabled armored vehicle (wheeled or tracked) in the field 

using available resources and equipment. 

31 Prepare and tow disabled armored vehicle (wheeled or tracked) 

using standard equipment and vehicles. 

G Set-up, operate, and maintain secure communications equipment. 

32 Set-up and install secure ground and mobile communications 

equipment (e.g., ground and airborne radios, tactical telephones). 

33 Operate ground and mobile communications equipment (e.g., 

ground and airborne radios, tactical telephones). 

34 Perform routine maintenance checks and services on mobile 

communications equipment (e.g., ground and airborne radios, 

tactical telephones). 

35 Troubleshoot mobile communications equipment (e.g., ground and 

airborne radios, tactical telephones). 

36 Identify and respond to an electronic attack and other security 

threats to a secure communications network. 

37 Encode and decode messages delivered over secure ground and 

mobile communications equipment (e.g., ground and airborne 

radios, tactical telephones). 

H Protect against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear 

(CBRN) attacks or hazards. 

38 Prepare for or react to a CBRN attack or hazard by protecting self 

and others using appropriate gear or equipment. 

39 Detect, monitor, or measure CBRN agents or levels. 

40 Decontaminate self or equipment using decontamination kits. 

I Perform first aid and treat casualties. 

41 Evaluate a casualty's vital signs, status, and severity of their 

injuries (e.g., blood loss, shock). 

42 Perform CPR, prevent shock, clear the throat of a casualty, or 

perform other basic first aid. 

43 Perform first aid for an open wound or other injuries (e.g., burns, 

bone fractures) received during combat. 

44 Perform first aid for an open wound or other injuries (e.g., burns, 

bone fractures) received in a non-combat situation. 

45 Perform first aid for a CBRN casualty. 

C-8 
No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

J Evacuate casualties or remains. 

46 Administer an IV and stabilize casualty for transport. 

47 Transport a casualty, on foot or using a vehicle or other transport 

equipment. 

48 Request a medical evacuation. 

49 Recover, evacuate, or inter remains. 

K Set-up, operate, and maintain secure communications equipment. 

50 Set-up and install secure ground and mobile communications 

equipment (e.g., ground and airborne radios, tactical telephones). 

51 Operate ground and mobile communications equipment (e.g., 

ground and airborne radios, tactical telephones). 

52 Perform routine maintenance checks and services on mobile 

communications equipment (e.g., ground and airborne radios, 

tactical telephones). 

53 Troubleshoot mobile communications equipment (e.g., ground and 

airborne radios, tactical telephones). 

54 Identify and respond to an electronic attack and other security 

threats to a secure communications network. 

55 Encode and decode messages delivered over secure ground and 

mobile communications equipment (e.g., ground and airborne 

radios, tactical telephones). 

L Guard, search, and monitor detainees or prisoners. 

56 Guard or protect detainees or prisoners. 

57 Search detainees or prisoners for weapons or prohibited items. 

58 Restrain or subdue detainees or prisoners using the appropriate 

level of force. 

59 Monitor detainee or prisoner activity. 

60 Escort detainees or prisoners to a new location, inside or outside a 

detainment or corrections facility. 

M Guard, search, or patrol areas or locations. 

61 Guard or patrol an assigned area(s) or location(s). 

62 Search an area or location for a person(s) or object(s). 

63 Obtain information from the general public or potential witnesses 

on suspicious activity in area or location. 

64 Apprehend, search, and detain a person(s) for suspicious activity. 

65 Restrain or subdue a person(s) using the appropriate level of force. 

66 Defuse a situation(s) using interpersonal skills. 

N Guard and control vehicle and pedestrian traffic. 

67 Guard or patrol key access points or entrances to restricted areas 

(e.g., dismount points, roadblocks, or checkpoints). 

68 Search or inspect vehicles or persons for explosive devices or 

prohibited items. 

69 Direct or control vehicle or pedestrian traffic. 

70 Monitor vehicle or pedestrian traffic for suspicious activity. 

71 Direct or control the behavior of groups or crowds of noncombatants, under emergency and non-emergency conditions. 

C-9 
Part 3 – Feedback 

Please take a moment to reflect back on the questionnaire you completed and answer the 

following questions: 

1. How would you rate the questionnaire on the following: 

a. Ease of use: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

b. Instructions: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

c. Clarity of the statements you were asked to rate: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

d. Relevance to your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

e. Usefulness for describing the requirements of your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

2. If you rated the questionnaire a 3 or below (“Neither Bad Nor Good” to “Very Bad”) on any 

of the above questions, please explain. 

<SPACE> 

3. Are there work activities important to the job of first-term Soldiers in your MOS that were 

not reflected in the current questionnaire? If so, what? 

<SPACE> 

4. Please enter any additional feedback or comments on the questionnaire in the space below: 

<SPACE> 

C-10 
Army Work Activities Questionnaire 

19K M1 Abrams Tank Armor Crewman 

Instructions 

The purpose of this questionnaire is to find out about the work activities performed by first-term 

Soldiers in your MOS. As you complete this questionnaire, consider the typical first-term Soldier 

in your MOS who is at Skill Level 1 (SL1) and who has completed at least one year of duty in a 

typical unit assignment and position and at least one series of Green-Amber-Red training cycles 

and unit operational requirements. 

This questionnaire consists of a series of work activities describing what first-term Soldiers in your 

MOS do, to whom or what it is done, and potentially for what purpose it is done. For example: 

Operate radio communications equipment. 

For each work activity, you will be asked to make three ratings. 

The first involves rating each work activity in terms of its importance to the job of first-term 

Soldiers in your MOS. You will use the following scale to make this rating: 

Not Important 

Somewhat 

Important Important Very Important 

Extremely 

Important 

1 2 3 4 5 

The second involves rating each work activity in terms of how difficult it is for first term Soldiers in 

your MOS to learn to perform the activity to standard through classroom training. You will use the 

following scale to make this rating:

Very Easy to 

Learn 

Somewhat Easy 

to Learn 

Neither Easy 

nor Difficult to 

Learn 

Somewhat 

Difficult to 

Learn 

Very Difficult to 

Learn 

1 2 3 4 5 

The third involves rating each work activity in terms of how serious the negative consequences 

would be for the Soldier’s unit or the unit’s mission if a first-term Soldier in your MOS failed to 

successfully perform the activity. You will use the following scale to make this rating: 

Not Serious 

Somewhat 

Serious Serious Very Serious 

Extremely 

Serious 

1 2 3 4 5 

You will complete this set of ratings twice. You will first rate all of the individual work 

activities. You will then rate the higher-level categories these work activities fall under.

C-11 
Part 1 – Individual Work Activities 

No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

A Operate and maintain radio communications 

equipment. 

1 Install and configure radio communications equipment for 

use in tank. 

2 Operate radio communications equipment. 

3 Perform routine maintenance checks and services on radio 

communications equipment. 

4 Troubleshoot radio communications equipment. 

B Operate and maintain tank computer and digital 

information systems. 

5 Install software and upload data on tank computer and 

digital information systems. 

6 Operate tank computer and digital information systems. 

7 Perform routine maintenance checks and services on tank 

computer and digital information systems. 

C Drive tank. 

8 Prepare the tank driver’s station for operation. 

9 Perform tank driver’s operation checks and services. 

10 Drive tank. 

11 Troubleshoot tank malfunctions using driver’s control 

panel and digital warning messages. 

D Operate and maintain tank main gun. 

12 Prepare the tank loader's station for operation. 

13 Load and unload tank main gun. 

14 Perform routine maintenance and services on tank main 

gun. 

15 Troubleshoot tank main gun malfunctions and misfires. 

E Operate and maintain tank-mounted machine guns. 

16 Mount and dismount machine guns from tank. 

17 Load and unload tank-mounted machine guns. 

18 Aim, track, and fire tank-mounted machine guns at targets. 

19 Perform routine maintanence checks and services on tankmounted machine guns. 

20 Troubleshoot tank-mounted machine gun malfunctions and 

misfires. 

F Recover and tow tank. 

21 Recover disabled tank in the field using available resources 

and equipment. 

22 Prepare and tow disabled tank using standard equipment 

and vehicles. 

 

C-12 
No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

F Operate and maintain tank mounted mine clearing 

equipment. 

23 Perform routine maintenance checks and services on tankmounted mine clearing equipment. 

24 Operate tank-mounted mine clearing equipment. 

G Maintain and service non-weapons tank systems and 

equipment. 

25 Perform routine maintenance checks and services on tank 

automotive system. 

26 Perform routine maintenance checks on basic issue tank 

equipment, such as portable fire extinguishers. 

27 Decontaminate tank equipment using portable 

decontamination equipment. 

H Inspect and stow tank gun ammunition. 

28 Inspect tank gun ammunition prior to stowing. 

29 Prepare and stow ammunition in tank. 

I Handle and evacuate casualties. 

30 Evacuate a wounded crewman from a tank. 

31 Request a medical evacuation. 

J Navigate in the field. 

32 Assemble and read maps. 

33 Guide tank movements for driver using hand signals and a 

flashlight. 

C-13 
Part 2 – Work Activity Categories

No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

A Operate and maintain radio communications 

equipment. 

1 Install and configure radio communications equipment for 

use in tank. 

2 Operate radio communications equipment. 

3 Perform routine maintenance checks and services on radio 

communications equipment. 

4 Troubleshoot radio communications equipment. 

B Operate and maintain tank computer and digital 

information systems. 

5 Install software and upload data on tank computer and 

digital information systems. 

6 Operate tank computer and digital information systems. 

7 Perform routine maintenance checks and services on tank 

computer and digital information systems. 

C Drive tank. 

8 Prepare the tank driver’s station for operation. 

9 Perform tank driver’s operation checks and services. 

10 Drive tank. 

11 Troubleshoot tank malfunctions using driver’s control 

panel and digital warning messages. 

D Operate and maintain tank main gun. 

12 Prepare the tank loader's station for operation. 

13 Load and unload tank main gun. 

14 Perform routine maintenance and services on tank main 

gun. 

15 Troubleshoot tank main gun malfunctions and misfires. 

E Operate and maintain tank-mounted machine guns. 

16 Mount and dismount machine guns from tank. 

17 Load and unload tank-mounted machine guns. 

18 Aim, track, and fire tank-mounted machine guns at targets. 

19 Perform routine maintanence checks and services on tankmounted machine guns. 

20 Troubleshoot tank-mounted machine gun malfunctions and 

misfires. 

F Recover and tow tank. 

21 Recover tank in the field using available resources and 

equipment. 

22 Prepare and tow tank using standard equipment and 

vehicles. 

 

C-14 
No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

F Operate and maintain tank mounted mine clearing 

equipment. 

23 Perform routine maintenance checks and services on tankmounted mine clearing equipment. 

24 Operate tank-mounted mine clearing equipment. 

G Maintain and service non-weapons tank systems and 

equipment. 

25 Perform routine maintenance checks and services on tank 

automotive system. 

26 Perform routine maintenance checks on basic issue tank 

equipment, such as portable fire extinguishers. 

27 Decontaminate tank equipment using portable 

decontamination equipment. 

H Inspect and stow tank gun ammunition. 

28 Inspect tank gun ammunition prior to stowing. 

29 Prepare and stow ammunition in tank. 

I Handle and evacuate casualties. 

30 Evacuate a wounded crewman from a tank. 

31 Request a medical evacuation. 

J Navigate in the field. 

32 Assemble and read maps. 

33 Guide tank movements for driver using hand signals and a 

flashlight. 

C-15 
Part 3 – Feedback

Please take a moment to reflect back on the questionnaire you completed and answer the 

following questions: 

5. How would you rate the questionnaire on the following: 

a. Ease of use: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

b. Instructions: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

c. Clarity of the statements you were asked to rate: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

d. Relevance to your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

e. Usefulness for describing the requirements of your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

6. If you rated the questionnaire a 3 or below (“Neither Bad Nor Good” to “Very Bad”) on any 

of the above questions, please explain. 

<SPACE> 

7. Are there work activities important to the job of first-term Soldiers in your MOS that were 

not reflected in the current questionnaire? If so, what? 

<SPACE> 

8. Please enter any additional feedback or comments on the questionnaire in the space below: 

<SPACE> 

C-16 
Army Work Activities Questionnaire 

25U Signal Support Systems Specialist 

Instructions 

The purpose of this questionnaire is to find out about the work activities performed by first-term 

Soldiers in your MOS. As you complete this questionnaire, consider the typical first-term Soldier 

in your MOS who is at Skill Level 1 (SL1) and who has completed at least one year of duty in a 

typical unit assignment and position and at least one series of Green-Amber-Red training cycles 

and unit operational requirements. 

This questionnaire consists of a series of work activities describing what first-term Soldiers in your 

MOS do, to whom or what it is done, and potentially for what purpose it is done. For example: 

Operate radio communications equipment. 

For each work activity, you will be asked to make three ratings. 

The first involves rating each work activity in terms of its importance to the job of first-term 

Soldiers in your MOS. You will use the following scale to make this rating: 

Not Important 

Somewhat 

Important Important Very Important 

Extremely 

Important 

1 2 3 4 5 

The second involves rating each work activity in terms of how difficult it is for first term Soldiers in 

your MOS to learn to perform the activity to standard through classroom training. You will use the 

following scale to make this rating:

Very Easy to 

Learn 

Somewhat Easy 

to Learn 

Neither Easy 

nor Difficult to 

Learn 

Somewhat 

Difficult to 

Learn 

Very Difficult to 

Learn 

1 2 3 4 5 

The third involves rating each work activity in terms of how serious the negative consequences 

would be for the Soldier’s unit or the unit’s mission if a first-term Soldier in your MOS failed to 

successfully perform the activity. You will use the following scale to make this rating: 

Not Serious 

Somewhat 

Serious Serious Very Serious 

Extremely 

Serious 

1 2 3 4 5 

You will complete this set of ratings twice. You will first rate all of the individual work 

activities. You will then rate the higher-level categories these work activities fall under.

C-17 
Part 1 – Individual Work Activities 

No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

A Install, maintain, and troubleshoot commercial computers 

and peripherals. 

1 Set-up and configure commercial desktop or laptop computers 

and peripherals such as printers. 

2 Install network hardware and software in commercial desktop 

or laptop computers. 

3 Perform scheduled maintenance and services on commercial 

desktop or laptop computers. 

4 Troubleshoot and repair commercial desktop or laptop 

computers to operation. 

B Install, maintain, and troubleshoot secure data 

transmission equipment. 

5 Set-up and install secure data transmission equipment. 

6 Perform scheduled maintenance and services on secure data 

transmission equipment. 

7 Troubleshoot and repair secure data transmission equipment to 

operation. 

C Install, maintain, and troubleshoot tactical computer 

networks and systems. 

8 Install tactical computer networks and systems such as the 

Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2). 

9 Perform scheduled maintenance and services on tactical 

computer networks and systems such as the Force XXI Battle 

Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2). 

10 Troubleshoot and repair tactical computer networks and 

systems such as the Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and 

Below (FBCB2) to operation. 

D Install, maintain, and troubleshoot secure communications 

and tactical satellite systems. 

11 Set-up and install secure telephones. 

12 Troubleshoot and repair secure telephones to operation. 

13 Install secure radio equipment and mobile communications 

systems. 

14 Perform scheduled maintenance and services on secure radio 

equipment and mobile communications systems. 

15 Troubleshoot and repair secure radio equipment and mobile 

communications systems to operation. 

16 Install tactical satellite equipment. 

17 Perform scheduled maintenance and services on tactical 

satellite equipment. 

18 Troubleshoot and repair tactical satellite equipment to 

operation. 

19 Install, splice, and knot wire and cable. 

 

C-18 
No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

E Install, maintain, and troubleshoot communication 

security (COMSEC) equipment. 

20 Set-up and install secure satellite equipment such as AN/VRC49 and AN/VRC-92 at a designated field site to transmit 

messages between radio stations. 

21 Monitor secure satellite equipment at designated field site for 

correct operation. 

22 Operate secure satellite equipment at designated field site. 

23 Monitor and identify potential security threats to 

communication networks and systems. 

24 Set-up passwords and install communication security 

(COMSEC) equipment. 

25 Perform scheduled maintenance and services on 

communication security (COMSEC) equipment. 

26 Troubleshoot and repair communication security (COMSEC) 

equipment to operation. 

F Provide instruction and technical support to users of 

computer and communications equipment. 

27 Obtain information on computer and communications 

equipment from users. 

28 Instruct users on the operation of computer and 

communications equipment. 

29 Provide technical support on computer and communications 

equipment to users. 

30 Understand technical operating, service or repair manuals for 

computer and communications equipment. 

G Complete records and forms on computer and 

communications equipment. 

31 Complete maintenance records and forms on computer and 

communications equipment. 

 

C-19 
Part 2 – Work Activity Categories 

No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

A Install, maintain, and troubleshoot commercial computers 

and peripherals. 

1 Set-up and configure commercial desktop or laptop computers 

and peripherals such as printers. 

2 Install network hardware and software in commercial desktop 

or laptop computers. 

3 Perform scheduled maintenance and services on commercial 

desktop or laptop computers. 

4 Troubleshoot and repair commercial desktop or laptop 

computers to operation. 

B Install, maintain, and troubleshoot secure data 

transmission equipment. 

5 Set-up and install secure data transmission equipment. 

6 Perform scheduled maintenance and services on secure data 

transmission equipment. 

7 Troubleshoot and repair secure data transmission equipment to 

operation. 

C Install, maintain, and troubleshoot tactical computer 

networks and systems. 

8 Install tactical computer networks and systems such as the 

Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2). 

9 Perform scheduled maintenance and services on tactical 

computer networks and systems such as the Force XXI Battle 

Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2). 

10 Troubleshoot and repair tactical computer networks and 

systems such as the Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and 

Below (FBCB2) to operation. 

D Install, maintain, and troubleshoot secure communications 

and tactical satellite systems. 

11 Set-up and install secure telephones. 

12 Troubleshoot and repair secure telephones to operation. 

13 Install secure radio equipment and mobile communications 

systems. 

14 Perform scheduled maintenance and services on secure radio 

equipment and mobile communications systems. 

15 Troubleshoot and repair secure radio equipment and mobile 

communications systems to operation. 

16 Install tactical satellite equipment. 

17 Perform scheduled maintenance and services on tactical 

satellite equipment. 

18 Troubleshoot and repair tactical satellite equipment to 

operation. 

19 Install, splice, and knot wire and cable. 

 

C-20 
No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

E Install, maintain, and troubleshoot communication 

security (COMSEC) equipment. 

20 Set-up and install secure satellite equipment such as AN/VRC49 and AN/VRC-92 at a designated field site to transmit 

messages between radio stations. 

21 Monitor secure satellite equipment at designated field site for 

correct operation. 

22 Operate secure satellite equipment at designated field site. 

23 Monitor and identify potential security threats to 

communication networks and systems. 

24 Set-up passwords and install communication security 

(COMSEC) equipment. 

25 Perform scheduled maintenance and services on 

communication security (COMSEC) equipment. 

26 Troubleshoot and repair communication security (COMSEC) 

equipment to operation. 

F Provide instruction and technical support to users of 

computer and communications equipment. 

27 Obtain information on computer and communications 

equipment from users. 

28 Instruct users on the operation of computer and 

communications equipment. 

29 Provide technical support on computer and communications 

equipment to users. 

30 Understand technical operating, service or repair manuals for 

computer and communications equipment. 

G Complete records and forms on computer and 

communications equipment. 

31 Complete maintenance records and forms on computer and 

communications equipment. 

C-21 
Part 3 – Feedback 

Please take a moment to reflect back on the questionnaire you completed and answer the 

following questions: 

9. How would you rate the questionnaire on the following: 

a. Ease of use: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

b. Instructions: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

c. Clarity of the statements you were asked to rate: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

d. Relevance to your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

e. Usefulness for describing the requirements of your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

10. If you rated the questionnaire a 3 or below (“Neither Bad Nor Good” to “Very Bad”) on any 

of the above questions, please explain. 

<SPACE> 

11. Are there work activities important to the job of first-term Soldiers in your MOS that were 

not reflected in the current questionnaire? If so, what? 

<SPACE> 

12. Please enter any additional feedback or comments on the questionnaire in the space below: 

<SPACE> 

C-22 
Army Work Activities Questionnaire 

31B Military Police 

Instructions 

The purpose of this questionnaire is to find out about the work activities performed by first-term 

Soldiers in your MOS. As you complete this questionnaire, consider the typical first-term Soldier 

in your MOS who is at Skill Level 1 (SL1) and who has completed at least one year of duty in a 

typical unit assignment and position and at least one series of Green-Amber-Red training cycles 

and unit operational requirements. 

This questionnaire consists of a series of work activities describing what first-term Soldiers in your 

MOS do, to whom or what it is done, and potentially for what purpose it is done. For example: 

Operate radio communications equipment. 

For each work activity, you will be asked to make three ratings. 

The first involves rating each work activity in terms of its importance to the job of first-term 

Soldiers in your MOS. You will use the following scale to make this rating: 

Not Important 

Somewhat 

Important Important Very Important 

Extremely 

Important 

1 2 3 4 5 

The second involves rating each work activity in terms of how difficult it is for first term Soldiers in 

your MOS to learn to perform the activity to standard through classroom training. You will use the 

following scale to make this rating:

Very Easy to 

Learn 

Somewhat Easy 

to Learn 

Neither Easy 

nor Difficult to 

Learn 

Somewhat 

Difficult to 

Learn 

Very Difficult to 

Learn 

1 2 3 4 5 

The third involves rating each work activity in terms of how serious the negative consequences 

would be for the Soldier’s unit or the unit’s mission if a first-term Soldier in your MOS failed to 

successfully perform the activity. You will use the following scale to make this rating: 

Not Serious 

Somewhat 

Serious Serious Very Serious 

Extremely 

Serious 

1 2 3 4 5 

You will complete this set of ratings twice. You will first rate all of the individual work 

activities. You will then rate the higher-level categories these work activities fall under.

C-23 
Part 1 – Individual Work Activities 

No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

A Conduct law enforcement activities. 

1 Guard or patrol a designated area(s) or location(s). 

2 Search an area or location for an individual(s) or object(s). 

3 Obtain information from potential witnesses or the general 

public on suspicious activity in area or location. 

4 Respond to and investigate complaints or disturbances. 

5 Apprehend, search, and arrest a criminal suspect(s). 

6 Restrain or subdue a criminal suspect(s) using the 

appropriate level of force. 

7 Serve arrest, search or seizure warrants. 

8 Serve or issue summonses or subpoenas. 

9 Defuse a situation(s) using interpersonal skills. 

B Control and enforce traffic laws. 

10 Guard or patrol entrances at key locations (e.g., dismount 

points, roadblocks, or checkpoints). 

11 Search or inspect vehicles for explosive devices or 

prohibited items. 

12 Direct or control vehicle or pedestrian traffic. 

13 Monitor vehicle or pedestrian traffic for suspicious activity. 

14 Issue citation or warning for violation of traffic laws. 

15 Respond to and investigate traffic violations or accidents. 

16 Direct or control groups or crowds of non-combatants, under 

emergency and non-emergency conditions. 

C Guard and monitor detainees or prisoners. 

17 Guard or protect detainees or prisoners. 

18 Search detainees or prisoners for weapons or prohibited 

items. 

19 Restrain or subdue detainees or prisoners using the 

appropriate level of force. 

20 Monitor detainee or prisoner activity. 

21 Escort detainees or prisoners to a new location, inside or 

outside a detainment or corrections facility. 

22 Respond to emergency situations (e.g., fights, riots, escapes) 

in detainment or corrections facility. 

23 Guard or patrol area or premises in a detainment or 

corrections facility. 

24 Search or inspect area or premises in a detainment or 

corrections facility. 

25 Search or inspect incoming and outgoing materials for 

detainees or prisoners. 

D Assist in crime scene investigations. 

26 Establish a perimeter for crime scene and control access. 

27 Guard or secure evidence at or from a crime scene. 

28 Gather or collect evidence at crime scene. 

C-24 
No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

29 Interview crime victims, witnesses, or suspects to obtain 

relevant information. 

E Guard or patrol people, places, or objects as member of 

a security team. 

30 Guard or patrol a facility as member of a team. 

31 Guard or protect individual(s) as member of a team. 

32 Guard or patrol cargo as a member of a team. 

33 Guard or secure classified information or materials during 

transport as member of a team. 

F Set-up and operate radio communications equipment. 

34 Operate radio communications equipment. 

35 Set-up a secure radio communications site. 

36 Identify and respond to an electronic attack and other 

security threats over a radio communications network. 

G Prepare forms and reports. 

37 Prepare initial criminal incident reports. 

38 Prepare and maintain records and logs on detainees or 

prisoners. 

39 Prepare CBRN, spot, and situational reports. 

H Drive wheeled vehicles. 

40 Drive armored wheeled vehicles (e.g., ASV) alone or in a 

convoy on a non-tactical mission. 

41 Drive armored wheeled vehicle (e.g., ASV) alone or in a 

convoy on a tactical mission. 

42 Follow traffic laws and regulations. 

43 Navigate from point to point using maps and navigational 

equipment (e.g., GPS). 

C-25 
Part 2 – Work Activity Categories 

No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

A Conduct law enforcement activities. 

1 Guard or patrol a designated area(s) or location(s). 

2 Search an area or location for an individual(s) or object(s). 

3 Obtain information from potential witnesses or the general public 

on suspicious activity in area or location. 

4 Respond to and investigate complaints or disturbances. 

5 Apprehend, search, and arrest a criminal suspect(s). 

6 Restrain or subdue a criminal suspect(s) using the appropriate 

level of force. 

7 Serve arrest, search or seizure warrants. 

8 Serve or issue summonses or subpoenas. 

9 Defuse a situation(s) using interpersonal skills. 

B Control and enforce traffic laws. 

10 Guard or patrol entrances at key locations (e.g., dismount points, 

roadblocks, or checkpoints). 

11 Search or inspect vehicles for explosive devices or prohibited 

items. 

12 Direct or control vehicle or pedestrian traffic. 

13 Monitor vehicle or pedestrian traffic for suspicious activity. 

14 Issue citation or warning for violation of traffic laws. 

15 Respond to and investigate traffic violations or accidents. 

16 Direct or control groups or crowds of non-combatants, under 

emergency and non-emergency conditions. 

C Guard and monitor detainees or prisoners. 

17 Guard or protect detainees or prisoners. 

18 Search detainees or prisoners for weapons or prohibited items. 

19 Restrain or subdue detainees or prisoners using the appropriate 

level of force. 

20 Monitor detainee or prisoner activity. 

21 Escort detainees or prisoners to a new location, inside or outside a 

detainment or corrections facility. 

22 Respond to emergency situations (e.g., fights, riots, escapes) in 

detainment or corrections facility. 

23 Guard or patrol area or premises in a detainment or corrections 

facility. 

24 Search or inspect area or premises in a detainment or corrections 

facility. 

25 Search or inspect incoming and outgoing materials for detainees 

or prisoners. 

D Assist in crime scene investigations. 

26 Establish a perimeter for crime scene and control access. 

27 Guard or secure evidence at or from a crime scene. 

28 Gather or collect evidence at crime scene. 

29 Interview crime victims, witnesses, or suspects to obtain relevant 

C-26 
No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

information. 

E Guard or patrol people, places, or objects as member of a 

security team. 

30 Guard or patrol a facility as member of a team. 

31 Guard or protect individual(s) as member of a team. 

32 Guard or patrol cargo as a member of a team. 

33 Guard or secure classified information or materials during 

transport as member of a team. 

F Set-up and operate radio communications equipment. 

34 Operate radio communications equipment. 

35 Set-up a secure radio communications site. 

36 Identify and respond to an electronic attack and other security 

threats over a radio communications network. 

G Prepare forms and reports. 

37 Prepare initial criminal incident reports. 

38 Prepare and maintain records and logs on detainees or prisoners. 

39 Prepare CBRN, spot, and situational reports. 

H Drive wheeled vehicles. 

40 Drive armored wheeled vehicles (e.g., ASV) alone or in a convoy 

on a non-tactical mission. 

41 Drive armored wheeled vehicle (e.g., ASV) alone or in a convoy 

on a tactical mission. 

42 Follow traffic laws and regulations. 

43 Navigate from point to point using maps and navigational 

equipment (e.g., GPS). 

C-27 
Part 3 – Feedback 

Please take a moment to reflect back on the questionnaire you completed and answer the 

following questions: 

13. How would you rate the questionnaire on the following: 

a. Ease of use: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

b. Instructions: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

c. Clarity of the statements you were asked to rate: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

d. Relevance to your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

e. Usefulness for describing the requirements of your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

14. If you rated the questionnaire a 3 or below (“Neither Bad Nor Good” to “Very Bad”) on any 

of the above questions, please explain. 

<SPACE> 

15. Are there work activities important to the job of first-term Soldiers in your MOS that were 

not reflected in the current questionnaire? If so, what? 

<SPACE> 

16. Please enter any additional feedback or comments on the questionnaire in the space below: 

<SPACE> 

C-28 
Army Work Activities Questionnaire 

63B Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic 

Instructions 

The purpose of this questionnaire is to find out about the work activities performed by first-term 

Soldiers in your MOS. As you complete this questionnaire, consider the typical first-term Soldier 

in your MOS who is at Skill Level 1 (SL1) and who has completed at least one year of duty in a 

typical unit assignment and position and at least one series of Green-Amber-Red training cycles 

and unit operational requirements. 

This questionnaire consists of a series of work activities describing what first-term Soldiers in your 

MOS do, to whom or what it is done, and potentially for what purpose it is done. For example: 

Operate radio communications equipment. 

For each work activity, you will be asked to make three ratings. 

The first involves rating each work activity in terms of its importance to the job of first-term 

Soldiers in your MOS. You will use the following scale to make this rating: 

Not Important 

Somewhat 

Important Important Very Important 

Extremely 

Important 

1 2 3 4 5 

The second involves rating each work activity in terms of how difficult it is for first term Soldiers in 

your MOS to learn to perform the activity to standard through classroom training. You will use the 

following scale to make this rating:

Very Easy to 

Learn 

Somewhat Easy 

to Learn 

Neither Easy 

nor Difficult to 

Learn 

Somewhat 

Difficult to 

Learn 

Very Difficult to 

Learn 

1 2 3 4 5 

The third involves rating each work activity in terms of how serious the negative consequences 

would be for the Soldier’s unit or the unit’s mission if a first-term Soldier in your MOS failed to 

successfully perform the activity. You will use the following scale to make this rating: 

Not Serious 

Somewhat 

Serious Serious Very Serious 

Extremely 

Serious 

1 2 3 4 5 

You will complete this set of ratings twice. You will first rate all of the individual work 

activities. You will then rate the higher-level categories these work activities fall under.

C-29 
Part 1 – Individual Work Activities 

No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

A Perform scheduled maintenance checks and services on 

wheeled vehicle. 

1 Obtain service box and read orders for maintenance job. 

2 Perform routine inspection and checks of wheeled vehicle. 

3 Replace worn parts and fluids in wheeled vehicle. 

4 Drive or test wheeled vehicle after completing scheduled 

maintenance checks and services. 

B Troubleshoot malfunctions in wheeled vehicle. 

5 Read and review wheeled vehicle maintenance and service 

records. 

6 Troubleshoot malfunctions in wheeled mechanical and electrical 

systems. 

7 Read and refer to technical documents and manuals. 

C Repair wheeled vehicle. 

8 Correct or repair malfunctions in wheeled vehicle mechanical and 

electrical systems. 

9 Replace damaged or defective parts in wheeled vehicle 

mechanical and electrical systems. 

10 Drive or test wheeled vehicle after repair or replacement of parts. 

D Maintain tools and test equipment. 

11 Clean and maintain tools and test equipment. 

12 Secure and account for tools and test equipment. 

13 Calibrate and service tools and test equipment. 

E Perform administrative duties. 

14 Complete and maintain wheeled vehicle maintenance and service 

records. 

15 Prepare and submit forms to order replacement parts. 

F Prepare work area and follow safety procedures. 

16 Prepare work area for wheeled vehicle maintenance and repair. 

17 Follow safety procedures when working on wheeled vehicle. 

18 Use protective clothing and special equipment when working 

under hazardous conditions. 

C-30 
Part 2 – Work Activity Categories

No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

A Perform scheduled maintenance checks and services on 

wheeled vehicle. 

1 Obtain service box and read orders for maintenance job. 

2 Perform routine inspection and checks of wheeled vehicle. 

3 Replace worn parts and fluids in wheeled vehicle. 

4 Drive or test wheeled vehicle after completing scheduled 

maintenance checks and services. 

B Troubleshoot malfunctions in wheeled vehicle. 

5 Read and review wheeled vehicle maintenance and service 

records. 

6 Troubleshoot malfunctions in wheeled mechanical and electrical 

systems. 

7 Read and refer to technical documents and manuals. 

C Repair wheeled vehicle. 

8 Correct or repair malfunctions in wheeled vehicle mechanical and 

electrical systems. 

9 Replace damaged or defective parts in wheeled vehicle 

mechanical and electrical systems. 

10 Drive or test wheeled vehicle after repair or replacement of parts. 

D Maintain tools and test equipment. 

11 Clean and maintain tools and test equipment. 

12 Secure and account for tools and test equipment. 

13 Calibrate and service tools and test equipment. 

E Perform administrative duties. 

14 Complete and maintain wheeled vehicle maintenance and service 

records. 

15 Prepare and submit forms to order replacement parts. 

F Prepare work area and follow safety procedures. 

16 Prepare work area for wheeled vehicle maintenance and repair. 

17 Follow safety procedures when working on wheeled vehicle. 

18 Use protective clothing and special equipment when working 

under hazardous conditions. 

 

C-31 
Part 3 – Feedback

Please take a moment to reflect back on the questionnaire you completed and answer the 

following questions: 

17. How would you rate the questionnaire on the following: 

a. Ease of use: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

b. Instructions: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

c. Clarity of the statements you were asked to rate: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

d. Relevance to your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

e. Usefulness for describing the requirements of your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

18. If you rated the questionnaire a 3 or below (“Neither Bad Nor Good” to “Very Bad”) on any 

of the above questions, please explain. 

<SPACE> 

19. Are there work activities important to the job of first-term Soldiers in your MOS that were 

not reflected in the current questionnaire? If so, what? 

<SPACE> 

20. Please enter any additional feedback or comments on the questionnaire in the space below: 

<SPACE> 

C-32 
Army Work Activities Questionnaire 

88M Motor Transport Operator 

Instructions 

The purpose of this questionnaire is to find out about the work activities performed by first-term 

Soldiers in your MOS. As you complete this questionnaire, consider the typical first-term Soldier 

in your MOS who is at Skill Level 1 (SL1) and who has completed at least one year of duty in a 

typical unit assignment and position and at least one series of Green-Amber-Red training cycles 

and unit operational requirements. 

This questionnaire consists of a series of work activities describing what first-term Soldiers in your 

MOS do, to whom or what it is done, and potentially for what purpose it is done. For example: 

Operate radio communications equipment. 

For each work activity, you will be asked to make three ratings. 

The first involves rating each work activity in terms of its importance to the job of first-term 

Soldiers in your MOS. You will use the following scale to make this rating: 

Not Important 

Somewhat 

Important Important Very Important 

Extremely 

Important 

1 2 3 4 5 

The second involves rating each work activity in terms of how difficult it is for first term Soldiers in 

your MOS to learn to perform the activity to standard through classroom training. You will use the 

following scale to make this rating:

Very Easy to 

Learn 

Somewhat Easy 

to Learn 

Neither Easy 

nor Difficult to 

Learn 

Somewhat 

Difficult to 

Learn 

Very Difficult to 

Learn 

1 2 3 4 5 

The third involves rating each work activity in terms of how serious the negative consequences 

would be for the Soldier’s unit or the unit’s mission if a first-term Soldier in your MOS failed to 

successfully perform the activity. You will use the following scale to make this rating: 

Not Serious 

Somewhat 

Serious Serious Very Serious 

Extremely 

Serious 

1 2 3 4 5 

You will complete this set of ratings twice. You will first rate all of the individual work 

activities. You will then rate the higher-level categories these work activities fall under.

C-33 
Part 1 – Individual Work Activities 

No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

A Drive wheeled vehicle. 

1 Drive wheeled vehicle alone or in a convoy on a non-tactical 

mission. 

2 Drive wheeled vehicle alone or in a convoy on a tactical mission. 

3 Drive wheeled vehicle with trailer or semitrailer. 

4 Drive wheeled vehicle on adverse roads and terrain. 

5 Drive wheeled vehicle under adverse climatic conditions. 

6 Drive wheeled vehicle at day or night under severely degraded 

visual conditions. 

7 Couple and uncouple trailers or semitrailers to wheeled vehicle. 

8 Back up wheeled vehicle with trailer or semitrailer. 

9 Follow traffic laws and regulations. 

B Maintain and service wheeled vehicle. 

10 Prepare wheeled vehicle for operations. 

11 Inspect wheeled vehicle before, during, and after operations. 

12 Perform routine maintenance checks and services on wheeled 

vehicle. 

13 Understand wheeled vehicle service or repair manuals. 

C Transport personnel and cargo. 

14 Load or unload passengers for transport in a wheeled vehicle. 

15 Operate heavy equipment to load or unload cargo for transport. 

16 Manually load or unload cargo for transport in a wheeled vehicle. 

17 Secure and tiedown cargo before transport in wheeled vehicle. 

18 Inspect tiedowns and security of cargo before and during 

transport in wheeled vehicle. 

D Recover and tow wheeled vehicle. 

19 Recover disabled vehicle in the field using available resources 

and equipment. 

20 Prepare and tow disabled vehicle using standard equipment and 

vehicles. 

E Complete forms and reports. 

21 Complete accident forms. 

22 Complete driver trip records. 

F Navigate and steer wheeled vehicle movements. 

23 Read maps. 

24 Operate vehicle navigational and movement tracking systems. 

25 Steer the wheeled vehicle movements of other drivers using hand 

signals and a flashlight. 

 

C-34 
Part 2 – Work Activity Categories 

No. Work Activity 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Training 

Difficulty 

(1-5) 

Critical 

(1-5) 

A Drive wheeled vehicle. 

1 Drive wheeled vehicle alone or in a convoy on a non-tactical 

mission. 

2 Drive wheeled vehicle alone or in a convoy on a tactical mission. 

3 Drive wheeled vehicle with trailer or semitrailer. 

4 Drive wheeled vehicle on adverse roads and terrain. 

5 Drive wheeled vehicle under adverse climatic conditions. 

6 Drive wheeled vehicle at day or night under severely degraded 

visual conditions. 

7 Couple and uncouple trailers or semitrailers to wheeled vehicle. 

8 Back up wheeled vehicle with trailer or semitrailer. 

9 Follow traffic laws and regulations. 

B Maintain and service wheeled vehicle. 

10 Prepare wheeled vehicle for operations. 

11 Inspect wheeled vehicle before, during, and after operations. 

12 Perform routine maintenance checks and services on wheeled 

vehicle. 

13 Understand wheeled vehicle service or repair manuals. 

C Transport personnel and cargo. 

14 Load or unload passengers for transport in a wheeled vehicle. 

15 Operate heavy equipment to load or unload cargo for transport. 

16 Manually load or unload cargo for transport in a wheeled vehicle. 

17 Secure and tiedown cargo before transport in wheeled vehicle. 

18 Inspect tiedowns and security of cargo before and during 

transport in wheeled vehicle. 

D Recover and tow wheeled vehicle. 

19 Recover disabled vehicle in the field using available resources 

and equipment. 

20 Prepare and tow disabled vehicle using standard equipment and 

vehicles. 

E Complete forms and reports. 

21 Complete accident forms. 

22 Complete driver trip records. 

F Navigate and steer wheeled vehicle movements. 

23 Read maps. 

24 Operate vehicle navigational and movement tracking systems. 

25 Steer the wheeled vehicle movements of other drivers using hand 

signals and a flashlight. 

C-35 
C-36 

Part 3 – Feedback 

Please take a moment to reflect back on the questionnaire you completed and answer the 

following questions: 

21. How would you rate the questionnaire on the following: 

a. Ease of use: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

b. Instructions: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

c. Clarity of the statements you were asked to rate: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

d. Relevance to your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

e. Usefulness for describing the requirements of your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

22. If you rated the questionnaire a 3 or below (“Neither Bad Nor Good” to “Very Bad”) on any 

of the above questions, please explain. 

<SPACE> 

23. Are there work activities important to the job of first-term Soldiers in your MOS that were 

not reflected in the current questionnaire? If so, what? 

<SPACE> 

24. Please enter any additional feedback or comments on the questionnaire in the space below: 

<SPACE> 
Appendix D 

Work Context Questionnaire 

 

D-1 
D-2 

Army Work Context Questionnaire 

Instructions 

The purpose of this questionnaire is to find out about the kinds of conditions under which a firstterm Soldier in your MOS must perform. As you complete this questionnaire, consider the typical 

first-term Soldier in your MOS who is at Skill Level 1 (SL1) and who has completed at least one 

year of duty in a typical unit assignment and position and at least one series of Green-AmberRed training cycles and unit operational requirements. 

This questionnaire consists of a series of statements describing different conditions under which 

a first-term Soldier in your MOS must perform. For example: 

Exposed, or potentially exposed, to manufactured (i.e., manmade) hazards or contaminants. 

For each statement, you will be asked to make two ratings. 

The first rating asks you to rate how characteristic the statement is for first-term Soldiers in your 

MOS in a non-combat zone field assignment. When making this rating, use the following scale: 

Not at all 

characteristic 

Slightly 

characteristic 

Somewhat 

characteristic 

Moderately 

characteristic 

Very 

characteristic 

1 2 3 4 5 

Please record your rating directly in the space marked, “Non-Combat.” 

The second rating asks you to rate how characteristic the statement is for first-term Soldiers in 

your MOS in a combat zone field assignment (e.g., in Iraq or Afghanistan). When making this 

rating, use the following scale: 

Not at all 

characteristic 

Slightly 

characteristic 

Somewhat 

characteristic 

Moderately 

characteristic 

Very 

characteristic 

1 2 3 4 5 

Please record your rating directly in the space marked, “Combat.”
Army Work Context Questionnaire – Rating Sheet 

Part 1 – Work Context 

First-term Soldiers in my MOS are... 

# Item 

NonCombat 

(1-5) 

Combat 

(1-5) 

1 Exposed, or potentially exposed, to manufactured (i.e., man-made) 

hazards or contaminants. 

 

2 Exposed, or potentially exposed, to natural environmental hazards. 

3 Exposed, or potentially exposed, to diseases or infection when 

performing their work. 

 

4 Required to operate, use, or handle hazardous equipment or 

materials. 

 

5 Required to work indoors or in an environmentally controlled 

environment. 

 

6 Required to work outdoors, exposed to all weather conditions. 

7 Required to work in enclosed or cramped spaces. 

8 Exposed to sounds and noise levels that are distracting and 

uncomfortable. 

 

9 Exposed to extreme temperatures (hot or cold). 

10 Required to work at night or under inadequate lighting conditions. 

11 Exposed to significant levels of physical or mental discomfort, 

stress, or strain. 

 

12 Required to perform their work while wearing or carrying heavy 

equipment, supplies, or materials. 

13 Required to wear specialized protective or safety equipment that 

can restrict or constrain their performance. 

 

14 Required to work with limited, inadequate, or defective equipment, 

supplies, or materials. 

 

15 Required to work long hours or take on additional duties due to 

limited or inadequate personnel. 

 

16 Required to perform their duties with limited or inadequate 

information or instructions. 

 

17 Required to work through frequent or unscheduled interruptions 

that make it hard to complete their work on time. 

 

18 Required to respond to frequent crises or emergencies. 

19 Afforded the freedom to determine the timing and scheduling of 

their work. 

 

D-3 
20 Afforded the freedom to determine which methods and procedures 

are used to complete their work. 

 

21 Required to work at a pace or speed determined by equipment or 

technology. 

 

22 Required to make decisions that affect, or could affect, others. 

23 Required to perform duties of long or extended duration. 

24 Required to work long or extended hours with little to no sleep. 

25 Afforded limited rest or recovery time between stressful or 

demanding tasks. 

26 Required to plan or perform under significant time pressure. 

27 Required to be very precise and highly accurate when completing 

their tasks. 

28 Required to perform under circumstances of conflicting or 

ambiguous directions, orders, or priorities. 

29 Required to work under minimal or limited supervision. 

30 Required to perform duties for which they received minimal or 

limited training. 

31 Required to perform non-job specific duties or to complete tasks 

outside of their job. 

32 Required to depend heavily on technology or equipment to 

complete their tasks. 

33 Required to perform continuous, repetitive physical or mental tasks. 

34 Required to interact or deal with non-hostile host country nationals. 

35 Required to interact or deal with hostile but non-violent host 

country nationals or groups. 

36 Required to deal with violent or physically aggressive host country 

nationals or groups. 

37 Required to interact or work with non-Army personnel. 

38 Required to perform work that is highly visible to others and for 

which others can observe what they are doing. 

39 Required to interact or work with challenging and difficult 

coworkers. 

40 Required to work closely with or depend heavily on others to 

complete their own duties. 

41 Required to perform their work largely on their own, with little 

assistance from others. 

42 Required to interact and work with others at a distance (e.g., 

through e-mail or other forms of electronic communication). 

43 Required to work as a member of a team consisting of individuals 

outside of the Soldier’s unit or the Army. 

44 Required to coordinate or lead others for whom the Soldier has no 

direct authority. 

D-4 
D-5 

# Item 

NonCombat 

(1-5) 

Combat 

(1-5) 

45 Required to persuade or influence others for whom the Soldier has 

no direct authority. 

46 Required to be responsible for the health and safety of non-Army 

personnel. 
Army Work Context Questionnaire 

Part 2 – Feedback 

Please take a moment to reflect back on the questionnaire you completed and answer the following 

questions: 

25. How would you rate the questionnaire on the following: 

a. Ease of use: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

b. Instructions: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

c. Clarity of the statements you were asked to rate: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

d. Relevance to your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

e. Usefulness for describing the requirements of your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

26. If you rated the questionnaire a 3 or below (“Neither Bad Nor Good” to “Very Bad”) on any of 

the above questions, please explain. 

<SPACE> 

27. Are there conditions critical to your MOS under which first-term Soldiers must perform that 

were not reflected in the current questionnaire? If so, what? 

<SPACE> 

28. Please enter any other feedback or comments on the questionnaire in the space below: 

<SPACE> 

D-6 
Appendix E 

Worker-Oriented Questionnaires 

 

E-1 
E-2 

Army Abilities Questionnaire 

Instructions 

The purpose of this questionnaire is to find out what abilities are most important to the work of first-term 

Soldiers in your MOS. Abilities are enduring attributes of a person that influence how well they perform 

their work. The Army offers many different MOS; your answers will let us know the abilities that are 

most descriptive of yours. As you complete this questionnaire, consider the typical first-term 

Soldier in your MOS who is at Skill Level 1 (SL1) and has completed at least one year of duty in 

a typical unit assignment and position and at least one series of Green-Amber-Red training 

cycles and unit operational requirements.

Rate each ability in terms of its importance to the work of first-term Soldiers in your MOS. You will use 

the following scale to make this rating: 

1 2 3 4 5 

Not 

Important 

Somewhat 

Important 

Important Very 

Important 

Extremely 

Important 

When completing this questionnaire, it is important that you consider how well each ability 

describes the job of first-term Soldiers in your MOS, not, the job of NCOs in your MOS. 

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Æ
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

E-3 
Part 1 - Abilities 

First-term Soldiers in my MOS must be able to... 

# Ability 

Importance 

(1-5) 

1 Read and understand written documents and communicate with others in 

writing. 

2 Listen to and understand what others are saying and speak effectively to 

convey information to others. 

3 Come up with unusual or creative ideas about a given topic or generate 

multiple solutions to a problem. 

4 Tell when something is wrong or is likely to go wrong. 

5 Use logic and reasoning to evaluate ideas or the strengths and weaknesses 

of potential solutions to problems. 

6 Find ways or use different ways to structure, classify, or group multiple 

pieces of information into a meaningful order or pattern. 

7 Use mathematics to solve problems. 

8 Remember and recall information from memory when needed (e.g., words, 

numbers, pictures, and procedures). 

9 Know how to quickly find information and make sense of the information 

when found. 

10 Quickly and accurately compare similarities and differences among objects 

or stimuli to identify or detect a meaningful pattern (e.g., a figure, object, 

word, or sound). 

11 Know their location in relation to the environment or know where other 

objects are in relation to themselves. 

12 Imagine how something will look after it is moved around or when its 

parts are moved or rearranged. 

13 Concentrate on a task over a period of time without being distracted. 

14 Perform multiple activities simultaneously or shift back and forth between 

two or more sources of information at once. 

15 Learn new skills or how to perform an activity on their own, either by 

figuring it out themselves or by observing others. 

16 Keep their hand and arm steady while moving arm or while holding arm 

and hand in one position. 

17 Move fingers, hands, or hands together with arms to grasp, manipulate, or 

assemble objects. 

18 Use fingers, hands, feet, or limbs to operate the controls of a machine or 

piece of equipment to adjust its positioning, speed, or direction. 

19 Make fast, simple, repeated movements (with finger, hand, foot, or limbs) 

in quick response to a signal (e.g., sound, light, picture) when it appears. 

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Æ

E-4 
E-5 

# Ability 

Importance 

(1-5) 

20 Use muscles to lift, push, pull, carry, or throw objects or to propel oneself 

(e.g., jump or sprint). 

21 Exert themselves physically over long periods of time without getting 

winded or out of breath (e.g., from running). 

22 Bend, stretch, twist, or reach out with their body, arms, or legs (i.e., be 

flexible). 

23 Coordinate the movement of arms, legs, and torso together while 

stationary or when whole body is in motion. 

24 Keep or regain their balance or stay upright when in an unstable position. 

25 See details accurately (e.g., of an object) at close range or at a distance. 

26 Match or detect differences between colors, including shades of color and 

brightness. 

27 See objects or movement of objects to their side when the eyes are looking 

ahead (i.e., peripheral vision). 

28 Judge which of several objects is closer or farther away from them, or 

judge the distance between them and an object. 

29 Hear sounds accurately and tell the differences between sounds that vary 

in pitch and loudness. 

30 Focus attention on a single sound and tell from which direction it 

originated in the presence of other distracting sounds. 
Part 2 – Feedback 

Please take a moment to reflect back on the questionnaire you completed and answer the 

following questions: 

29. How would you rate the questionnaire on the following: 

a. Ease of use: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

b. Instructions: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

c. Clarity of the statements you were asked to rate: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

d. Relevance to your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

e. Usefulness for describing the requirements of your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

30. If you rated the questionnaire a 3 or below (“Neither Bad Nor Good” to “Very Bad”) on any 

of the above questions, please explain. 

<SPACE> 

31. Are there abilities required of first-term Soldiers in your MOS that were not reflected in the 

questionnaire? If so, what? 

<SPACE> 

32. Please enter any other feedback or comments on the questionnaire in the space below: 

<SPACE> 

E-6 
E-7 

Army Work Styles Questionnaire 

Instructions 

The purpose of this questionnaire is to find out about the types of work styles required of firstterm Soldiers in your MOS. Work styles are personal characteristics that can affect how well 

someone performs a job. The Army offers many different MOS; your answers will let us know 

the work styles that are most and least important to yours. As you complete this questionnaire, 

consider the typical first-term Soldier in your MOS who is at Skill Level 1 (SL1) and who has 

completed at least one year of duty in a typical unit assignment and position and at least one 

series of Green-Amber-Red training cycles and unit operational requirements. 

Rate each work style in terms of its importance to the job of first-term Soldiers in your MOS. 

You will use the following scale to make this rating: 

1 2 3 4 5 

Not Important Somewhat 

Important 

Important Very Important Extremely 

Important 

When completing this questionnaire, it is important that you consider how well each work style 

describes the job of first-term Soldiers in your MOS, not, the job of NCOs in your MOS. 
 

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

E-8 
Part 1 – Work Styles 

First-term Soldiers in my MOS perform work that requires... 

# Work Style 

Importance 

(1-5) 

1 Showing a cooperative and friendly attitude towards others they 

dislike or disagree with. 

2 Being open to change (positive or negative) and a lot of variety. 

3 Leading, taking charge, and giving direction. 

4 Accomplishing tasks alone, with little supervision or help from 

others. 

5 Setting challenging goals and working continuously to attain 

them. 

6 Consistently meeting obligations and completing duties on time. 

7 Dealing effectively with high-stress situations and accepting 

frequent criticism. 

8 Much creativity and original thinking to perform successfully. 

9 Maintaining composure and keeping emotions and behavior in 

check even in very difficult circumstances. 

10 Being sensitive to others' needs and feelings and being 

understanding. 

11 High levels of energy and stamina to perform successfully. 

12 Working closely with others (instead of alone) to get tasks 

completed. 

13 Being thorough and paying close attention to details. 

14 Performing tasks that take a long time to "get right" and 

overcoming several obstacles along the way. 

15 Taking on new or additional responsibilities that may fall outside 

of their job duties. 

16 Interacting with people of different cultures and backgrounds, and 

appreciating differences in their values, opinions, and beliefs. 

17 Being organized and efficient. 

18 Thinking through things logically. 

19 Following rules, procedures, and protocols, even when those 

requirements are personally inconvenient. 

20 Being decisive and taking immediate action in response to the 

situation. 

 

E-9 
Part 2 – Feedback 

Please take a moment to reflect back on the questionnaire you completed and answer the 

following questions: 

33. How would you rate the questionnaire on the following: 

a. Ease of use: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

b. Instructions: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

c. Clarity of the statements you were asked to rate: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

d. Relevance to your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

e. Usefulness for describing the requirements of your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

34. If you rated the questionnaire a 3 or below (“Neither Bad Nor Good” to “Very Bad”) on any 

of the above questions, please explain. 

<SPACE> 

35. Are there work styles required of first-term Soldiers in your MOS that were not reflected in 

the current questionnaire? If so, what? 

<SPACE> 

36. Please enter any other feedback or comments on the questionnaire in the space below: 

<SPACE> 

E-10 
E-11 

Army Work Interests Questionnaire 

Instructions 

The purpose of this survey is to find out about the work interests supported by the kinds of work 

performed by first-term Soldiers in your MOS. Work interests are preferences for certain kinds of 

work that can influence an individual’s satisfaction with their job. The Army offers many 

different MOS; your answers will let us know the work styles that are most and least important 

to yours. As you complete this questionnaire, consider the typical first-term Soldier in your MOS 

who is at Skill Level 1 (SL1) and who has completed at least one year of duty in a typical unit 

assignment and position and at least one series of Green-Amber-Red training cycles and unit 

operational requirements. 

Rate each work interest in terms of its importance to the job of first-term Soldiers in your MOS. 

You will use the following scale to make this rating: 

1 2 3 4 5 

Not Important 

Somewhat 

Important Important Very Important 

Extremely 

Important 

When completing this questionnaire, it is important that you consider how well each work 

interest describes the job of first-term Soldiers in your MOS, not, the job of NCOs in your MOS. 
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

E-12 
Part 1 – Work Interests 

First-term Soldiers in my MOS perform must like... 

# Work Interest 

Importance 

(1-5) 

1 Communicating with others (verbally or in writing) inside or outside 

their organization. 

 

2 Protecting others. 

3 Assisting and caring for others. 

4 Selling and influencing others. 

5 Resolving conflicts and negotiating with others. 

6 Performing for or working directly with the public. 

7 Training and teaching others. 

8 Entering, transcribing, or recording data or information in written or 

electronic form. 

 

9 Processing or tabulating data or compiling information (visual, 

audio, verbal, or written) and verifying its accuracy or completeness. 

 

10 Translating or explaining what data or information (visual, audio, 

verbal, or written) means to others. 

 

11 Analyzing data or interpreting information (visual, audio, verbal, or 

written). 

 

12 Observing or collecting data or information from multiple sources or 

media (visual, audio, print, electronic). 

 

13 Identifying objects, actions, and events. 

14 Monitoring processes, materials, or surroundings. 

15 Inspecting equipment, structures, or materials for problems or defects. 

16 Estimating the quantifiable characteristics of products, events, or 

information. 

 

17 Judging the quality of objects, services, or people. 

18 Evaluating information to determine compliance with standards. 

19 Scheduling and coordinating events, programs, or activities. 

20 Drafting or laying out specifications for technical devices, parts, or 

equipment. 

 

21 Performing physical activities, such as running, walking, climbing, 

lifting, or balancing. 

 

22 Handling and moving objects or materials. 

23 Shooting, firing, and operating weapons or weapon systems (small 

arms, missile systems, and other munitions). 

 

24 Working with computers or computer networks. 

25 Driving or operating vehicles or other mechanized equipment. 

26 Repairing and maintaining mechanical equipment. 

27 Repairing and maintaining electronic or electrical equipment. 

28 Constructing buildings, bridges, walls, or structures. 

29 Performing administrative activities, such as handling paperwork 

and completing forms. 

30 Monitoring and controlling resources. 

E-13 
Part 2 – Feedback 

Please take a moment to reflect back on the questionnaire you completed and answer the 

following questions: 

37. How would you rate the questionnaire on the following: 

a. Ease of use: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

b. Instructions: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

c. Clarity of the statements you were asked to rate: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

d. Relevance to your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

e. Usefulness for describing the requirements of your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

38. If you rated the questionnaire a 3 or below (“Neither Bad Nor Good” to “Very Bad”) on any 

of the above questions, please explain. 

<SPACE> 

39. Are there work interests supported by the kinds of work performed by first-term Soldiers in 

your MOS that were not reflected in the current questionnaire? If so, what? 

<SPACE> 

40. Please enter any other feedback or comments on the questionnaire in the space below: 

<SPACE> 

E-14 
E-15 

Army Work Values Questionnaire 

Instructions 

The purpose of this questionnaire is to find out about the work values supported by the kinds of 

work performed by first-term Soldiers in your MOS. Work values are personal characteristics that 

can influence how satisfied an individual is in their job. The Army offers many different MOS; 

your answers will let us know the work values that are most and least important to yours. As you 

complete this questionnaire, consider the typical first-term Soldier in your MOS who is at Skill 

Level 1 (SL1) and who has completed at least one year of duty in a typical unit assignment and 

position and at least one series of Green-Amber-Red training cycles and unit operational 

requirements. 

Rate each work value in terms of its importance to the job of first-term Soldiers in your MOS. 

You will use the following scale to make this rating: 

1 2 3 4 5 

Not Important 

Somewhat 

Important Important Very Important 

Extremely 

Important 

When completing this questionnaire, it is important that you consider how well each work value 

describes the job of first-term Soldiers in your MOS, not, the job of NCOs in your MOS. 
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

E-16 
Part 1 – Work Values 

First-term Soldiers in my MOS... 

# Item 

Importance 

(1-5) 

1 Do work that most people admire and respect 

2 Have opportunities for advancement 

3 Plan their work with little supervision 

4 Have supervisors who provide a lot of support and guidance 

5 Have the freedom to pursue their non-work interests after hours 

6 Work in a comfortable and relaxed environment 

7 Get a feeling of accomplishment 

8 Do work that makes a valuable contribution to society 

9 Do their work alone 

10 Help others 

11 Have clear-cut duties and responsibilities 

12 Have something different to do every day 

13 Have opportunities to lead others 

14 Get feedback about my performance 

15 Travel and often be far from home 

16 Have the opportunity to improve their physical fitness 

17 Do something that makes use of their abilities 

18 Try out their own ideas 

19 Receive recognition for what they do 

20 Develop friendships with their co-workers 

21 Always have enough work to keep themselves busy 

22 Have a flexible work schedule 

23 Learn new skills 

24 Establish roots in a community by not having to move frequently 

25 Feel valued by their organization 

26 Gain personal discipline and maturity 

27 Make decisions that affect the work of others 

28 Work closely with others 

29 Solve difficult and complex problems 

30 Do work that is high in prestige and status 

E-17 
E-18 

Part 2 – Feedback 

Please take a moment to reflect back on the questionnaire you completed and answer the 

following questions: 

41. How would you rate the questionnaire on the following: 

a. Ease of use: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

b. Instructions: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

c. Clarity of the statements you were asked to rate: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

d. Relevance to your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

e. Usefulness for describing the requirements of your MOS: 

Very Bad Bad 

Neither Bad 

Nor Good Good Very Good 

1 2 3 4 5 

42. If you rated the questionnaire a 3 or below (“Neither Bad Nor Good” to “Very Bad”) on any 

of the above questions, please explain. 

<SPACE> 

43. Are there work values supported by the kinds of work performed by first-term Soldiers in 

your MOS that were not reflected in the current questionnaire? If so, what? 

<SPACE> 

44. Please enter any other feedback or comments on the questionnaire in the space below: 

<SPACE> 
Appendix F 

Cross-Job Work Activity Descriptors and Definitions 

F-1 
Major Duty Definition 

1 Protect against NBC hazards Uses protective clothing, masks, and decontamination equipment to protect 

self, others, equipment, and supplies from nuclear, biological, and 

chemical (NBC) hazards. Detects and monitors potential hazards using 

NBC detection equipment. 

2 Handle demolitions or mines Stores, places, charges, discharges, and disarms explosives, demolition 

devices, or mines. 

3 Engage in hand-to-hand combat Uses offensive and defensive maneuvers to combat and protect self and 

others from hostile individuals. 

4 Inspect and maintain weapons Checks, disassembles, assembles, cleans, lubricates, and adjusts weapons, 

including pistols, rifles, machine guns, hand grenades, and breechblocks. 

5 Fire direct fire weapons Aims, tracks, and fires individual weapons (e.g., rifles, pistols, machine 

guns, hand grenades) at designated targets. Prepares and loads weapon. 

Clears and unloads weapon. Arms and throws hand grenades. 

6 Troubleshoot and repair weapons Finds the cause of malfunctions in weapons using technical manuals, tools, 

and test equipment. After the cause of a problem in a weapon has been 

found, fixes it using the appropriate tools and necessary replacement parts 

by following directions in the weapon's technical manual. 

7 Navigate from point to point Reads and interprets maps, other navigational devices, and equipment 

(e.g., GPS) to locate position of self and others. Determines grid 

coordinates and directions. Moves from point to point in response to 

terrain features (e.g., or cover or concealment) battle conditions, and 

mission, with or without the aid of maps and other navigational equipment. 

8 Maintain personal and 

operational security 

Selects, prepares, and occupies individual tactical positions (e.g., battle 

positions, overwatch positions, observations posts), camouflages self and 

equipment, and observes security procedures. 

9 Provide emergency first aid Provide emergency first aid to individuals (e.g., CPR, put on field dressing, 

prevent shock). 

10 Scout and identify targets With or without optical devices and other equipment (e.g., night sights, 

weapon sights, binoculars), scouts and locates possible targets and their 

position(s). Identifies target's type (e.g., troops, tanks, aircraft) and intent 

(e.g., hostile or non-hostile). 

11 Fire heavy direct fire weapons Aims, tracks, and fires heavy direct fire weapon (e.g., tank main guns, 

TOW missile) at targets. Positions and loads weapons for firing. Unloads 

or extracts unused rounds or misfires. 

12 Fire indirect fire weapons Aims, tracks, and fires indirect weapon (e.g., field artillery, heavy mortars) by 

adjusting azimuth and elevation controls to hit designated targets. Positions 

and loads weapon for firing. Unloads or extracts unused rounds or misfires. 

13 Drive track vehicles Drives track vehicles (e.g., tank, APC, BFV, etc.) in response to mission, 

terrain, and traffic controls. 

14 Install and maintain electronic 

equipment 

Installs and connects electronic, communications, and satellite-based 

equipment (e.g., GPS, radios, antennas, satellite telephones, radar, missile 

and tank ballistics computer systems). Inspects and monitors equipment for 

operation. Conducts scheduled services to maintain equipment. (Does not 

include personal computers and computer networks.) 

F-2 
 Major Duty Definition 

15 Troubleshoot and repair 

electronic equipment 

Troubleshoots electronic, communications, and satellite-based equipment 

(e.g., GPS, radios, antennas, radar, missile and tank ballistics computer 

systems) to diagnose problems and malfunctions using specialized test 

equipment and manuals. Repairs equipment with the appropriate tools 

(e.g., test sets, screwdrivers, pliers, soldering guns) and necessary 

replacement parts by following directions in the equipment's technical 

manual. (Does not include personal computers and computer networks.) 

16 Install and maintain electrical 

and power transmission systems 

Installs and connects electrical and power transmission systems (e.g., 

electrical wiring, power cables, communications wiring). Lays, splices, 

and knots wires and cables using the appropriate tools (e.g., wire cutters). 

Inspects and monitors systems for operation. Conducts scheduled services 

to maintain systems. 

17 Troubleshoot and repair 

electrical and power transmission 

systems 

Measures and tests electrical and power transmission system components (e.g., 

generators, wiring harnesses, switches, relays, circuit breakers, wires, cables) 

to detect and diagnose problems and malfunctions using specialized test 

equipment and manuals. Repairs system components with the appropriate tools 

(e.g., wire strippers, pliers, soldering irons) and necessary replacement parts by 

following directions in the equipment's technical manual. 

18 Install and maintain personal 

computers and peripheral 

equipment 

Connects personal computers and peripherals, installs software, and 

connects to networks. Monitors computers and peripherals. Conducts 

scheduled services and upgrades to maintain computers and peripherals. 

(Does not include computer networks.) 

19 Install and maintain computer 

networks 

Installs and configures network hardware and software. Monitors network 

use and performance. Conducts scheduled services and upgrades to 

maintain network. (Does not include personal computers.) 

20 Troubleshoot and repair personal 

computers and computer 

networks 

Troubleshoots personal computer and network components (e.g., hard drive, 

monitors, keyboard, network router, network cables-wiring) to detect and 

diagnose problems and malfunctions using specialized test equipment and 

manuals. Repairs computer or network components with the appropriate tools 

(e.g., pliers, screwdrivers, wrenches) and necessary replacement parts by 

following directions in the equipment's technical manual. 

21 Operate electronic equipment Sets and adjusts the controls to operate electronic, communications, and 

satellite-based equipment (e.g., GPS, radios, antennas, satellite telephones, 

radar, missile ballistics controls), including tactical command and control 

systems (e.g., Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade-and-Below [FBCB2]). 

22 Operate personal computers and 

networks 

Operates and works with personal computers and networks to create and 

edit documents and presentations, store and enter data into databases, or to 

search for and process information. (Does not include programming). 

23 Record and document 

audiovisual information 

Records and documents visual and sound information for intelligence 

analysis, training, or documentation using audiovisual equipment (e.g., 

audio recorders, cameras, videotape, digital video). 

24 Send and receive radio messages Uses standardized radio codes and procedures to transmit and receive 

messages and other information. 

25 Collect and decode electronic 

signals 

Collects electronic signals and communications. Uses coding systems and 

rules to decipher and interpret coded information. 

F-3 
 Major Duty Definition 

26 Analyze electronic signals Analyzes electronic signals to detect threat transmitters and electronic 

countermeasures. 

27 Provide data processing and 

programming support 

Analyzes data processing needs. Selects or prepares, edits, tests, and runs 

computer programs. Documents process and results. 

28 Produce maps, overlays, or range 

cards 

Uses drafting, graphics, and related techniques to draw and revise maps of 

terrain, including locations of buildings and other objects, targets, avenues 

of approach, and maneuver areas from personal observation or available 

materials (e.g., aerial photographs). 

29 Provide technical guidance and 

advice on the installation, 

maintenance, and use of 

equipment 

Explains and demonstrates to Army and non-Army personnel at all levels 

how to install, maintain, and use equipment. Answers technical questions. 

Provides expert advice to others on issues related to the installation, 

maintenance, and use of equipment. 

30 Translate foreign languages Translates written or spoken foreign language communications. 

31 Analyze intelligence data Determines importance and reliability of information. Uses information to 

determine identity, capabilities, disposition, and movement of non-U.S. 

forces and personnel. 

32 Control individuals and crowds Performs guard duty, including challenge and password. Apprehends and 

searches suspected criminals, detainees, or prisoners. Guards and escorts 

detainees or prisoners. Participates in riot control. 

33 Collect information from and on 

individuals and groups 

Collects and gathers information from and on individuals and groups using 

a variety of techniques (e.g., interviews, focus groups, observations). 

34 Inspect and maintain mechanical 

equipment 

Inspects and monitors mechanical equipment (e.g., vehicles, trailers, 

generators, construction equipment). Conducts scheduled services to 

maintain equipment. 

35 Troubleshoot and repair 

mechanical equipment 

Troubleshoots mechanical system components (e.g., engines, 

transmissions, brakes, hydraulics, refrigeration systems) to diagnose 

problems and malfunctions using specialized test equipment and manuals. 

Repairs equipment using the appropriate tools (e.g., wrenches, 

screwdrivers, gauges, hammers, soldering equipment) and necessary 

replacement parts by following directions in the equipment manual. 

36 Operate gas and electric powered 

equipment 

Operates gas and electric powered equipment (e.g., electric generators, air 

compressors, smoke generators, quarry machines, mobile washing 

machines, water pumps) to produce power or process materials. 

37 Prepare and process forms Follows standardized procedures to prepare or complete forms and 

documents (e.g., personnel records, legal briefs, requisition requests, 

inspection records). Obtains required authorizations, as needed. Monitors 

and reviews forms for completeness. 

38 Maintain records and files Collects, sorts, indexes, files, and retrieves records and files (e.g., medical 

records, training rosters, personnel statistics, supply inventories, etc.). 

39 Write documents and 

correspondence 

Prepares and writes letters, reports, and memos. Proofreads and edits 

documents prior to distribution. 

40 Monitor and control financial 

resources 

Monitor and controls the expenditure of financial resources. Maintains and 

reviews accounting records. Disperses and collects money and money orders. 

F-4 
 Major Duty Definition 

41 Load and unload supplies Builds or assembles platforms, cushions, and riggings for supplies and 

equipment to protect from damage during transport. Loads and lashes 

materials onto transport vehicles (land, sea, or air) to secure and protect 

from damage or loss during shipment. Unpacks and unloads supplies after 

transport to designated location. 

42 Drive wheeled vehicles Drives wheeled vehicles over roads and cross-country in response to 

mission, terrain, and traffic regulations. 

43 Drive water craft Drives water craft (e.g., boats, rafts) in response to mission requirements 

and nautical regulations. 

44 Inspect, store, and issue supplies Inspects supplies and reviews paperwork upon receipt. Sorts and stores 

supplies. Issues or ships supplies to authorized personnel or units. 

45 Order supplies and equipment Determines supply and equipment needs or evaluates requests. Prepares 

and submits orders and requisitions for needed supplies and equipment. 

46 Manage and control traffic Manages and coordinates the departing, en route, arriving, and holding of 

traffic (land, air, or sea) by monitoring equipment, communicating with 

vehicles and other traffic control units. 

47 Operate hand-operated power 

excavating equipment 

Uses hand-operated power excavating equipment (e.g., air hammers and 

drills, paving breakers, grinders, backfill tampers) to build concrete, stone, 

or other structures. 

48 Operate heavy equipment Operates heavy equipment (e.g., fork lifts, cranes, back-hoes, and graders) 

to load, unload, or move other heavy equipment, supplies, construction 

materials (e.g., culvert pipe, building and bridge parts) or terrain (e.g., 

earth, rocks, trees, etc.). 

49 Install, maintain, and repair 

plastic and fiberglass 

Installs plastic or fiberglass parts and structures. Fixes plastic or fiberglass 

parts and structures by cutting, sawing, drilling, sanding, filling, gluing, 

and painting. 

50 Repair metal structures or parts Fixes metal structures or parts by bending, cutting, drilling, welding, 

hammering, grinding, soldering, and painting. 

51 Construct metal or steel 

structures 

Erects bridges, communication antennas, and other steel structures. May 

require the assistance of others and use of heavy equipment. 

52 Install, maintain, and repair pipe 

assemblies 

Installs, connects, and tests pipe assemblies and fixtures (e.g., plumbing, 

POL pipelines and pumps). Repairs pipe assemblies. 

53 Construct wooden buildings and 

structures 

Measures, saws, nails or planes to frame, sheathe, and roof buildings, or 

erects trestles, bridges, and piers from wood. 

54 Construct masonry buildings and 

structures 

Measures, lays brick or concrete blocks, or builds forms and pours 

concrete to construct walls, columns, field fortifications, and other 

concrete or masonry structures. 

55 Produce technical drawings and 

illustrations 

Uses drafting equipment or other media (e.g., pen, pencil, paint) to make 

technical drawings and blueprints. (Does not include maps, range cards, or 

other field expedient drawings.) 

56 Prepare food and beverages Prepares food and beverages according to recipes and meal plans (measure, 

mix, bake). Inspects fresh food and staples for freshness. Cleans equipment 

and work area. 

F-5 
 Major Duty Definition 

57 Prepare patients and equipment 

for medical procedures 

Prepares patients for medical procedures by following prescribed rules and 

directions. Prepares medical or dental treatment areas for use by laying out 

instruments and equipment. Cleans equipment and area for future use. 

58 Provide medical treatment Provides medical treatment to Soldiers in the field or in medical or dental 

clinics, or administers veterinary treatment to animals (e.g., administers 

injections, takes blood pressure, changes sterile dressings). (Does not 

include performing basic first aid.) 

59 Schedule patients and medical 

services 

Schedules and provides routine information to persons seeking medical, 

dental, or counseling services. 

60 Provide counseling and other 

interpersonal interventions 

Counsels individuals and groups (e.g., families) on personal issues and 

relationship problems in a clinical, non-supervisory setting. (Does not 

include coaching and counseling Soldiers on performance-based issues.) 

61 Perform laboratory procedures Prepares and handles samples for laboratory tests (e.g., medical, chemical, 

biological). Conducts various types of laboratory tests following 

prescribed protocols and procedures. Files and reports results. 

62 Collect and analyze weather and 

environmental data 

Collects data and information on weather and environmental conditions. 

Analyzes their effects on tactical operations. 

63 Conduct land surveys Surveys terrain to determine elevations, azimuths, and distances of terrain 

features. Records information. 

64 Deliver presentations Makes formal presentations (e.g., briefings, radio and television broadcasts). 

65 Reproduce printed materials Reproduces printed materials using duplicating machines (e.g., electronic 

copiers, printing presses). Collates and binds materials using various types 

of bindery equipment. 

66 Demonstrate military presence Presents a positive and professional image of self and the Army even when 

off duty. Maintains proper military appearance. Sets the precedent for 

other Soldiers to follow. 

67 Maintain physical fitness Meets Army standards for weight, physical fitness, and strength. Maintains 

health (e.g., dental hygiene) and fitness to meet requirements, to handle the 

physical demands of the daily job, and to endure the stress of combat. 

68 Manage own duties and 

responsibilities 

Manages own responsibilities (e.g., work assignments, personal finances, 

family, and personal well being), and appears on duty prepared for work. 

Sets goals, makes plans, and critically evaluates own performance. Works 

effectively without direct supervision but seeks help when appropriate. 

69 Demonstrate extra effort and 

personal initiative on the job 

Demonstrates high effort in completing work. Takes independent action 

when necessary. Seeks out and willingly accepts responsibility and 

additional challenging assignments. Persists in carrying out difficult 

assignments and responsibilities. 

70 Manage own professional 

development 

Develops job-related skills, devoting time off-duty to study and practice 

important job-related skills. Takes on additional job duties and 

responsibilities to prepare for promotion and actively seeks out 

opportunities for self-improvement. Keeps up-to-date technically. 

F-6 
 Major Duty Definition 

71 Demonstrate personal integrity Maintains high ethical standards. Does not succumb to peer pressure to 

commit prohibited, harmful, or questionable acts. Voluntarily reports thefts, 

misconduct, and any other violations of military order and discipline. 

Understands and accepts the basic values of the Army and acts accordingly. 

72 Exhibit self-control Controls personal behavior. Does not engage in negative behaviors, such 

as alcohol and substance abuse at work. Meets financial obligations 

consistently, displays emotional maturity, and does not allow personal 

matters to interfere with professional duties and obligations. 

73 Follow orders and rules Understands and carries out orders relayed orally or in writing. Displays 

respect for authority. Adheres to regulations, policies, and procedures 

while completing assignments. Checks the behavior of others to ensure 

compliance. 

74 Contribute to team tasks Takes ownership for and completes assigned tasks for team according to 

committed timelines. Demonstrates effort toward team goals. Does not 

pass work off to others or take shortcuts that compromise quality. 

75 Direct peers and individual team 

members 

Helps to define goals and organize and prioritize tasks for peers and individual 

team members. Generates plans and strategies for task completion, identifies 

resources needed to meet team goals, and shares resources or guides individual 

team members to resources to help complete their tasks. 

76 Support peers and individual 

team members 

Provides social support and empathy, offers verbal encouragement and acts 

respectfully towards peers and team members, especially when tasks or 

situations are difficult or demanding. Facilitates cohesion and effective 

working relationships between team members by acting honestly, 

communicating openly and helping to manage or resolve conflicts. Does not 

embarrass team members in front of others, act impatiently, or blame others. 

77 Train peers and individual team 

members 

Shares information with peers and individual team members, provides task 

explanations and demonstrations, answers questions, and gives timely and 

constructive feedback. Does not withhold information about team-related 

tasks. 

78 Help peers and individual team 

members 

Fills in or covers for peers or individual team members who are 

overwhelmed or absent. Rearranges own schedule and demonstrates 

flexibility to help other peers or individual team members. Puts in extra 

time and effort to help peers and team members without being asked and 

without complaining. Does not engage in off-task activities when other 

team members could use help. 

79 Monitor peer and individual team 

member performance 

Observes and is knowledgeable about the performance of peers or other 

team members. Pays attention to what peers and individual team members 

are doing. Evaluates progress of self and others and recognizes when team 

members may need help. 

80 Monitor team performance Pays attention to the team's situation, including relevant conditions, 

procedures, policies, resources, systems, equipment, technology, and level 

of team accomplishment. Notices and identifies team-relevant problems 

and obstacles. 

81 Contribute to team planning Helps in identifying alternative solutions, strategies, or options for dealing 

with problems, obstacles, or decisions. Helps in evaluating alternative 

courses of action, and takes preventive measures to avoid future problems. 

F-7 
F-8 

 Major Duty Definition 

82 Contribute to team coordination Contributes to and encourages discussion of work distribution, workload 

balance, potential workload problems, and the sequencing of team members 

activities. Coordinates own task activities with other team members. Does not 

make unnecessary requests or overload other team members. 

83 Plan and organize 

operations/missions and team 

tasks 

Plans major operations or team tasks prior to their actual execution in field 

or workplace. Translates goals and objectives into tasks and activities. 

Forecasts possible problems for the platoon/squad/team and develops 

strategies for addressing these problems. Organizes and prioritizes work. 

84 Direct and motivate individual 

Soldiers 

Provides guidance and direction to individual Soldiers. Motivates Soldiers 

by providing them with recognition, encouragement, constructive 

criticism, and other feedback as appropriate. Helps to set goals and 

maintains performance standards for Soldiers. Monitors and counsels 

Soldiers on specific performance or personal problems, as needed. 

85 Train and coach Soldiers Trains, instructs, and coaches Soldiers on how to complete technical job 

tasks. Assists Soldiers in improving their technical job skills/proficiency. 

86 Communicate information to 

Soldiers, peers, and superiors 

Keeps Soldiers, superiors, and others informed about factors and issues 

affecting them. Obtains and then passes on information to those who 

should know. 

87 Administer personnel actions and 

procedures 

Completes performance appraisals. Makes or recommends various 

personnel actions. Keeps and maintains adequate records. Follows standard 

operating procedures. 

88 Manage and monitor 

operations/missions and team 

tasks 

Keeps an operation going once it has been initiated. Checks to make sure that 

Soldiers are carrying out their duties properly. Makes sure they have the right 

equipment. Monitors or evaluates the status of equipment readiness. 

89 Direct and lead 

platoons/squads/teams 

Directs and leads platoon/squad/team activities. Assigns NCOs and Soldiers 

duties and responsibilities for completing platoon/squad/team tasks. 

Coordinates the actions of squads/teams within unit and those of individual 

Soldiers. 

90 Model correct behavior to 

Soldiers 

Models the correct performance behavior to Soldiers, whether it be 

technical task performance under adverse conditions or exhibiting 

appropriate military bearing. 

91 Support individual Soldiers Demonstrates personal concern for Soldiers. Backs up and supports 

Soldiers as appropriate. Looks out for their welfare. 

92 Build and manage 

platoon/squad/team cohesion 

Builds and manages platoon/squad/team cohesion. Manages and resolves 

internal conflict among team members. Promotes and sustains team morale. 

93 Engage and negotiate with host 

nationals and local leaders. 

Interacts and meets with host nationals and local leaders (e.g., tribal, police 

chiefs) to obtain information, handle complaints, settle disputes, and 

resolve grievances between and among host nationals. Negotiates with host 

nationals to resolve conflicts with U.S. forces and to secure their support 

for U.S. military operations. 

94 Coordinate with other units and 

non-Army personnel 

Coordinates with other units and non-Army personnel (e.g., contractors, 

host nation forces) before, during, and after operations for support and 

equipment. Shares information on status, position, and actions with other 

units and non-Army personnel, as needed.