CAN RATERS WITH REDUCED JOB DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION PROVIDE ACCURATE POSITION ANALYSIS QUESTIONNAIRE (PAQ) RATINGS?
检验了Jones等人（1982）的结论，即仅凭叙述性职位描述即可获得有效的PAQ评分。通过将简化信息条件下的评分与专家评分对比，发现简化信息无法达到可接受的效度或信度。
Jones, Main, Butler, and Johnson (1982) stated that job‐naive raters provided with only narrative job descriptions can produce valid and reliable Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ) ratings. This implies that traditional time‐ and labor‐intensive methods of collecting job analysis information (e.g., interviews, direct observation) are not necessary in order to accurately complete the PAQ. However, PAQ ratings in the Jones et al. study were not validated against an external standard. Consequently, their conclusion is open to question. To determine the convergent validity of the Jones et al. approach, we provided job‐naive raters with varying amounts of job descriptive information and, in some cases, prior practice rating the job with another job analysis instrument; PAQ ratings were validated against those of job analysts who were also job content experts. None of the reduced job descriptive information conditions (or the practice) enabled job‐naive raters to obtain either acceptable levels of convergent validity with experts or high interrater reliability. Two areas of research that may make the PAQ more time‐ and labor‐efficient are discussed.