Discuss the relative pros and cons of the Position Analysis Questionnaire.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The average item reliability of the PAQ is a very respectable .80. Similar results were obtained with a German form of the PAQ (Frieling, Kannheiser, & Lindberg, 1974). A meta-analysis of 83 studies that used the PAQ revealed an average interrater reliability of .66. The same study revealed an average intrarater reliability of .82 (Dierdorff & Wilson, 2003). Personal and organizational factors seem to have little impact on PAQ results. In a controlled study, similar profiles resulted, regardless of whether the analyst was male or female, whether the incumbent portrayed his or her work as interesting or uninteresting, or whether a considerable amount of information or less information about the work was presented (Arvey, Davis, McGowen, & Dipboye, 1982). However, as has been found using other methods, PAQ ratings from expert and job-naive raters are not equivalent (DeNisi, Cornelius, & Blencoe, 1987). There simply are no shortcuts when using the PAQ. Despite these claims, research seems to indicate that much of the content of the PAQ is more suited for use with blue-collar manufacturing jobs than it is for professional, managerial, and some technical jobs (Cornelius, DeNisi, & Blencoe, 1984; DeNisi et al., 1987). The PAQ is also subject to two further limitations. First, since no specific work activities are described, behavioral similarities in jobs may mask genuine task differences between them--for example, a police officer’s profile is quite similar to a housewife’s (according to Arvey & Begalla, 1975) because of the troubleshooting, emergency-handling orientation required in both jobs. A second problem with the PAQ is readability, for a college-graduate reading level is required in order to comprehend the items (Ash & Edgell, 1975).