II
III

Hi:
I

II I
III

I!

I
II

I
I

III

I
I

I
II I

I
I

III

II

I

II

103
554

 

.THS_

AN ANALYSIS OF THE. APPLICATION
FORM IN THE SELECTION OF
CAFBTERIA WORKERS

Thai: for the Degree of M. 5.

MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE
Marie Agnes Bukovac

194i

‘ M .‘ .V . I‘. “.1; ‘ ‘A -"‘:\ :‘r. it . . V v _ :l " I . .- 1. r‘ ' - . ' _ ' V ' ' .5 7‘7. ‘JL'}“L‘ ."
' ' 33": 1' - " ('1‘ .- ' . " ‘ ' -'. , ' ‘ . A.- ' c. ‘v‘ u 51" ‘
v 1‘. ¢-§ .‘ .9 '.';"'. . " b‘ . ._ .. , $ _ .' <‘ <
" “I” 31%; ‘-‘- .. ' -..- . - , . 1v ;.-' - I w .
' 4 l ,' .- n , . ‘

‘4
_ .-. . . .v
9‘33: .

’ . \
J I
0'

.r! '
“i.

-
-g-v .

1/

1M
.“. ‘ '-‘ ...<o
,- o’..')' - 7.!
. ‘ . H '. , I-K
."'. v _.

If; -
f .

‘ . {W's
‘ -' .It’in

‘

:5;
.. "r

l .“ 5.? 1‘; “V;
’c i ' if f" 1‘
$.P.‘ ¥ 1} .

”hit-5“
.‘ .' ’1". $5, '

‘ u I 14"“ N" ‘ . . ‘\
. .:8.X.S;L; “Fifi-
.\;' "45$; ‘2: 3 .

l
v ,

. . x _
.. ‘
1". -
,pw—n. _
.

.3“:va-
i- ("I

‘Irli';

::I|I'¥C‘r‘f\'

-6-

'5 . . ' 1'. % - ' s.
" .E7.*;;';5 ' 52' ,"J’.
1.“ ..~_ 5-.» ,~ “1%.:- , .

-- - 1;»; z-. .3;

‘ "\f’J'L’fJ" .- g... .

é ‘ .‘-y, 91"? .,‘,‘
..-_.‘ :"I .’ \ - .
' ..‘ r

'2':
.l .7,
l ,

   

  

. - ~ .. 1:
' _II “€_ 7. '

_. I (#1. n 23.4”. i ' ‘.A
‘x 1 '

    

_ A ‘ _"f _. _ ‘. F 4' .‘v .. ‘ .‘. ‘. " -. 5 . 5.". .'. 3%:
.l ‘ I i ’ . ' “ I a \ - . ‘ - ' ~I 1' -’-.-- ‘1 ‘ ' , 1 “ I .' 5 .
.a. , MN? ' ”114%,“ Immafikb w r {5551...} Min.» .r£.~__ 7

m.

\'
'-
|r

'U
1
u
I I

    
   

.‘

' $5.5 3735; I. ~
‘I’fihfi‘mfifi - ~<

l

 

 

AN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION FORM IN THE SELECTION

OF CAFETERIA WORKERS

by
MARIE AGNES BUKOVAC

”Fifi-m mm

A THESIS

Submitted to the Graduate School of Michigan
State College of.Agricu1ture and.Applied
Science in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Institution Administration

Division of Home Economics

19u1

THESIS

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to acknowledge her indebtedness and
express her gratitude to all those who have assisted in
the preparation of this study, especially to Mrs. Mabelle
S. Ehlers for her guidance, patience, and encouragement;
to Dr. Marie Dye for her constructive criticisms and ad,
vice: to Dr. E. L. Ballachey for his general guidance and
suggestions on the method; to Dr. W. D. Baten for his in-
valuable and generous assistance with the statistical anv
alysis; and to those members of the Institution Food Many
agers' Association of Chicago, Illinois, for their kind

c00peration in supplying the basic data for this study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

I INTROWCTION0900000000000000000000000.000000000..
Purpose Of StudyooOoooooooooooo900.000.00.00
II CLASSIFIED REVIEW OF LITERATURE..................

In Reference to Letters of Application......
In Reference to Letters of Recommendation...

With Regard to Photograph......0.00.00.00.00

I

With Regard to the Interview................
With Reference to the Application Blank.....

III SOURCE AND METHOD OF COLLECTION OF DATA..........
IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA................
Conclusion.. ...... ..........................

V SUMMARY..........................................

BIBLIOGmIHOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0000...OOOOOOCOOOOOOO

Page

NWF’WUW

11
19
31+
36
37

 

 

 

-
.

.

.

»

.

v -

u . .
. c n
. . p q n
n a o p n
c . . n u
. . . . .
. . . s

n . . . .
._ . . q . .
a . n . u
. , . a u .
. . . n c u
, q . . . .
n . v I . . . .
. . . . . . q .
. . 5 . . . . . r
. . x I . I . u 4
. t l . p e u o a

.. .
b. I . .u a.

 
 

 

 

Table

II

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

IX

XI

XII

XIII

LIST OF TABLES

A DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE OF THE ESTABLISHMENTS
WHOSE SUPERVISORS ASSISTED IN FORMULATION
0F ”PLICATION BLANKOOOOOOO0..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.....

SUMMARY DATA REGARDING ITEMS ON THE TWO HUNDRED
APPLICATION FORMS: A. QUALITATIVE FACTORS..........

SUMMARY DATA REGARDING ITEMS ON THE TWO HUNDRED
APPLICATION FORMS: 3. . QUANTITATIVE FACTORS. . . . . . . . . .

DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYEES BY NATIONALITY..............

REASONS FOR LEAVING PREVIOUS POSITIONS FOR
COMPANY A0000...0000.00.OOIOOOOOOIOOOOOOOO00000.0...

CHECKS ON THE RELIABILITY OF RATINGS FOR COMPANY
AMID comm 3.0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOCOOO00......

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL SCORES................

DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYEES' SCORES BY RATING SHEET
ITEMS, SUPERVISORS, AND COMPANIES...................

AVERAGE SCORES BY QUESTIONS AND BY COMPANY............

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCORES FOR SELECTED ITEMS
ON RATING SHEET (COWANY A DATA)....................

CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN TOTAL SCORES ON
RATING SHEET AND QUANTITATIVE ITEMS ON APPLICAp
TION BI‘ANKOOC....00.0..OOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00.0.

ANALYSIS OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MARITAL STATUS
ON APPLICATION BLANK AND THE TOTAL SCORES...........

ANALYSIS OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN NUMBER OF CHIL—
DREN ON APPLICATION BLANK AND THE TOTAL SCORES......

13

19

2O

21

22

2’4
25

27
28

30

31

32

33

 

 

 

-
.
.
.
.
_
.
c
.
.
. n
s .
.
_ I u .
y . .
. .
. . .
. u o
. . .I

 

Table Page
XIV ANALYSIS OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN EDUCATION 0N
APPLICATION BLANK AND THE TOTAL SCORES.............. 33

XV ANALYSIS OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN AGE ON APPLI-
CATION BLANK AND THE TOTAL SCORES................... 33

XVI FACTORS WITH RESPECT TO AVERAGE SCORES BY
COMPANIESOOOCO0.0.0.0...0......0.0000000000000000... 35

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Page

1 Application Form Used in Study of Cafeteria
worker80000000000000000.0.0.00...00.00.000.000. 12

2 Rating Form Used in Study of Cafeteria
workerSOOOOOOOO0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0...... 11‘

3 Frequency Polygon: Percentage Distribution
of Total Scores by Companies and Combined...... 26

h Comparative Average Scores of Two Industrial
Cafeterias on Employees' Rating Scale.......... 29

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

It is not nearly as important to obtain a job or an employee as it
is to obtain the right job or the right employee. Errors of selection
result in waste, fatigue, loss of time, and.general maladjustment. Such
poor utilization of human and material resources sums up to gross inef-
ficiency,

Ever since the economic organization of society began to take its
present form, employers have been attempting to minimize the effects of
this condition of unsatisfactory combinations of factors. Much attention
has been given to this problem insofar as it may derive from the contri-
butions of labor or the human element; the wide spread use of the para
sonnel department in modern industry is evidence of this fact. Many
criteria have been and are being used to assist in the selection of the
employee whose qualifications indicate the highest probability of success
on the Job. Among these are the letter of application, the personal in-
terview, the personal history application blank in its simplest to most
complex form, employment tests (intelligence, job performance, personal-
ity, etc.), letters of reference, and a.multitude of combinations of the
above and some additional devices.

However, studies are not lacking which indicate the relative inef-
fectiveness of these techniques. Too often their use has contributed
little or nothing toward bringing about a desirable Job-person relation-

ship. Nevertheless, there exists considerable support for the belief that

 

 

the application blank in its simple or weighted form merits attention as
a tool for facilitating the hiring process. Differences of Opinion on
this point coupled.with the writer's eight years of association with the
problems of cafeteria management led to the keen realization of the ser-
iousness of maladjustments of the worker to his work, and of the costs
involved in high labor turnover, thus bringing about the undertaking of
this investigation.

Purpose g£_§£2923 This study was designed to determine the relationp
ship between the items commonly found on the application form used by
cafeteria concerns and the Job success of the employees thus chosen. It
therefore represents an attempt to evaluate application form data with

respect to their efficiency as aids in the selection of cafeteria employees.

CHAPTER II

CLASSIFIED REVIEW OF LITERATURE~

In this necessarily limited study, it was felt that little useful
purpose would be served by an attempt at an exhaustive review of avail-
able literature on these and related tOpics. Insofar as such a project
should fail of adequacy and thoroughness, to that extent it is prefer-
able that those interested proceed of their own accord to the original
sources which may be uncovered. Indeed, the seasoned investigator will
already have done so. For those less familiar with the field, it is hoped
that this brief summary of leads in literature will be of value.

I2_Reference 32 Letters g£_Application. D. A. Laird, psychologist

 

at the Riverside Laboratory, reports that Miss L. C. Walton at Columbia
University, made a study based on 100 letters of application for book—
keeper and office assistant, in which it was concluded that employees se-
lected primarily on their apparent merits as indicated by the letters of
application were chosen scarcely more objectively than if the first five
who appeared had been employed. He further states that, generally speak-
ing, the letter of application, as ordinarily used, should not be relied
upon to do more than to bring to the prospective employer the names and
addresses of the interested applicants.

In Reference to Letters of Recommendation. S. B. Mathewson, of the

 

Chamber of Commerce in Springfield, Ohio, says that approximately 82% of

 

1D. A. Laird, The Psychologygf’SelectingEmployees, McGraweHill,
1937. pp. 85-87. and p. 98.

 

employment offices now require that the applicant provide a list of re-
ferences composed of those who know something of his or her past life and
work history.2 This seems to be the usual procedure in most letters of
application, However, little trust should be placed in such letters of
recommendation because very few employers have the time, or will take the
time, to write any more than generalized statements haying very little
actual significance. Also, there is the tendency to include only favor-
able characteristics and give no report of the unfavorable ones. J. B.
Miner of the Carnegie Institute of Technology3 found that superiors in
the same department vary in their Judgment of a common former employee
in whose behalf they have written letters of recommendation; that the
potential employer might almost as well use random selection as a basis
of choice. The inquiry type of letter of recommendation deve10ped by
H. E. Burtt, Professor of Psychology, and by Bingham and Freyd of the
Personnel Research Federation suggest questions having some relation to
the particular Job for which the applicant is being considered}.5 Little
information is at hand with respect to their technique.

w 393% L0. Photogrgh. Experimental data show quite conclusive-
ly that there is neither consistency of Judgment nor high correlation with
any other criterion when the photograph is used as a basis for estimate

6
ing mental ability. It is the epinion of Laird that no one has yet been

28. B. Mathewson, 'A.Survey of Personnel Management in 195 Concerns,“
Personnel Journgl, Vol. 10, 1931-1932, pp. 225-231.

 

3HerbertMIoore, Psychology for Business gag Industgz, McGraw—Hill Co.,
1939: Po 850

1III. E. Burtt, Employment Ps cholo , Houghton Mifflin Co.,l926,pp.hO9—hul.

5'. V. D. Bingham and M. Freyd. Procedures lg Employment Ps cholo ,
McGrawéflill 00., 1926, pp. 150-151.

6Herbert Moore, pp. 91.1., p. 87.

discovered who could consistently be 10% more effective than chance in
estimating intelligence by the use of aphotograph.7 The photograph
serves the purpose of identifying the owner and to bring out any facial
deformity which should be avoided for certain positions demanding moder-
ate attractiveness and charm.

M Mtg £133 Interview. The interview method of hiring is the
most widely used in employee selection. Mathewson reports that 93% of
the 195 personnel departments which he surveyed regarded the interview as
the most important part of their employment procedure.8 Even though this
is the case, Hackett, psychologist in.New York, states that 'Interviewa
ing is one of the arts where mediocrity can flourish indefinitely with
little chance of discovery."9 This is especially true when the inter-
viewer is not acquainted with the Job demands and their promotional pos-
sibilities. Wonderlic, Professor of Psychology at Northwestern Univer-
sity, suggests the use of a standardized form of questions to be asked
during an interview and thinks that they should be recorded shortly af-
terward so as to satisfy oneself on the kind of work history this appli-
cant has, and whether or not he is able to adjust himself to the policies
and.procedures of the company.10 However, Morgan, also a.psychologist,
seems to disagree with Wonderlic by saying, "Any attempt to formulate a

standard.practice is practically useless. ... The method of procedure

 

7D. A. Laird, pp. cit., p. 109.

8Mathewson,gp.. cit., pp. 225-231.

9J. D. Hackett, “The Art of Interviewing Workers,“ Industrial Mgpr
ggement, Vol. 60, 1920, pp. 338-3140.

1OE. F. londerlic, "Personnel as a Control Function," Personnel, Vol.

1%. (No. 1). 1937. pp. 3M0.

depends upon conditions which no mechanically devised plan will ever be
formulated to meet the problem.'11

A.much more common type of interview takes on the conversational
form, in which the good interviewer is able to motivate, instruct, and
secure information from the applicants. If the position to be filled, is
one of supervision, then time should be spent in eliciting facts and
judgments which in turn will indicate attitudes; while on the other hand,
if the position is but a minor one, very few interviewers have or take
time to obtain the facts which are not quite adequately covered in the
application blank.12 From such studies as the one made by W. D. Scott,
Personnel Administrator, according to Laird, made on the reliability of
interviews by several judges, the conclusion drawn was that there is very
little agreement between any two judges.13 For that reason many sugges-
tions have been offered to make the interview more reliable. L. J. O'-
Rourke, of the United States Civil Service Commission, suggested that
candidates for the position of sales manager be given a disagreeable let-
ter from a customer and then asked to dictate their replies. In this way,
courtesy, and honesty presented in this situation allowed the applicant
to show what would likely happen in similar situations if he obtained the

in
position.

 

11E. B. Morgan, ”Interviewing for Selection,” IEQEELEAELHEEEEEEEEEE.
Vol. 61, 1921, p. 159.
12
J. Mills, "Engineering Aptitudes," Jour. Personnel Res., Vol. 3,
192h-1925. PP. 197-207.

 

 

13D. A. Laird, Psychology 2;; Selecting Meg, McGraw—Hill 00., 1927,
pp. 105-115.

th. J. O'Rourke, “Measuring Judgment and Resourcefulness,» Personp
9.9.1933. Vol. 7, 1928-29, pp. 1127mm). ——-—-—-

_w_:_1_3;_1_1_ Reference 3:; .t_h_e_ Application M. It is the Opinion of D. G,
Craig, Personnel Administrator, that in approximately 89% of the posi-
tions available today, employers require the completion of some form of
application blank.15 The completeness of this form, according to Moore,
“varies from the type which includes previous experience and training,
together with a very few'personal items, to the type which asks for al-
most everything about an applicant's past, present, and likely future--
affiliations, attitudes, interests, preferences, and contacts, as well as
personal and work history.“16 If the items on the application blank are
a.bit puzzling to the applicant, deception may be invited. In any case,
applicants may deliberately give deceptive replies. In the Army the per-
sonnel department found that only 6% of those who claimed they were ex-
perienced in a given trade were really well enough acquainted.with the
material to perform the job satisfactorily, and over 30%'were entirely
inexperienced.17

Because of the fact that the average application blank consists of
as many as 2% or more items and because some of the information asked for
has no bearing on the job to be filled, it is the hope and desire of many
to reduce the number of items in such a form. J. B. M. Clarke, well known

personnel director, says that the only items of importance, are name, ad-

dress, nationality, mental status, past experience, and health rec”(1.18

 

l
5D. G. Craig, “Analysis of Personnel Forms," Industrial Mapagement,

Vol. 70, 1925, pp. 122-l2h.
16Herbert Moore, pp. 933., p. 71+.

17Herb6¢ M00136, _°_Ee _c_i_t.OO P0 750

18J. B. M. Clarke, "Concerning Application.Forms,' Industrial NEE?
gement, Vol. 71, pp. 25-26, 1925; Vol. 72, pp. 2113-21111, 192 .

On the other hand, some others think that only name, address, and tele-
phone number are important.19 The only way to discover what these fac-
tors are is to make a study, in each organization, of those that have made
for success in the past. The writer will briefly mention some of the
studies in which certain factors are important in some types of work.

The Service Bulletin of the Bureau of Personnel Rehearch reports a
study of salesmen for a house to house selling firm.2O Two factors pre-
dominated in the successful men; that is, they were married, and between
the ages of 35 and #0. Even though one cannot make the general state-
ment that to be successful, one must be married and between 35 and he
years of age, at least the indication is that these factors might be im-
portant.

H. D. Kitson, Professor of Psychology at Columbia University, made
a study of the relation between height, weight, and success among shoe
salesmen and found such an insignificant correlation that he concluded
that it would be absurd to ask applicants for height and weight as possible
factors to their probable success in selling shoes.

Dorothy Goldsmith, also a psychologist, studied the personal-history
records of over 500 Guardian Life Insurance Company employees.22 The
items on which the successful men differed from the unsuccessful were

given a weighted score. Thus all the items were given a definite score

 

l
9A. G. Francis, Illinois Bell Telephone Co. (correspondence)

aoService Bulletin for June 1923, Bureau.of Personnel Research.

21H. D. Kitson, ”Height and Weight as Factors in Salesmanship,”
£225, Personnel Res., Vol. 1, 1922-1923, pp. 239-39h.

2aDorothy Goldsmith, ”The Use of the Personal History Blank as a
Salesmanship Test,“ Jgur. Applied Ps cholo , Vol. 6, 1922, pp. 1149-155,

range, the highest score being given to the more important factors. The
scored applicants were then divided into three groups depending upon their
scores. Each group was divided into three parts on the basis of produc-
tion records. The results of this study showed that if the weighted per-
sonal-history form.had been used and M set as the critical score,

5h$ of the subsequent failures would have been eliminated, and only 16%
of the subsequent successes would have been lost.

.A similar study was made by W. Russell and G. V. Cope in the person,
nel department of the Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company on their
salesmen. They studied the records of 500 salesmen by selecting each
item on the application form and compared the percentage of successes
with failures, and calculated their probability. For each of the 11 items
used, each applicant was given his chances of success. as his score. If
such a scale had been used at the time of employment, the expense of train-
ing 31 salesmen who were failure would have been avoided. After this meth-
od of selection was in effect for but three years, a reduction of the fail-
ures from 90% to 30% seemed to Justify the time spent on the research work?3

Another study made by M. Viteles, Professor of Psychology at the Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania, in 1926 in the selection of Yellow Cab drivers
in.Philadelphia took into consideration 80 drivers whose salaries ranged
from the best to the poorest.2h All of the 25 items found on their appli-
cation blanks were analysed but only seven of these had differential value

in estimating a candidate's fitness for the position. The seven included

 

23'. Russelland G. V. Cape, 'A.Method of Rating the History and Achieve-
ment of Applicants for Positions,” Public Personnel Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1,

1925. pp . 202-219.

M
2 Morris Viteles, The Science 2;.Work, W. I. Norton and Co., 1933,

PP. 175-195.

 

10

age, nationality, marital status, number of children, number of depend-
ents, trade followed, and weight. This group was divided into three parts
ranging from best to poor, and weights were given each item. When these
weights were taken into consideration in the hiring of 188 men during the
first six months of 1925, it was discovered that 57 men, or approximately
30%, would have been eliminated, over half of whom.proved later to be
fadlures.

An even more elaborate study of the important items in the applicap
tion blank was made by R. S. Uhrbrock and M. W. Richardson in the inter-
est of selecting supervisors for the Procter and Gamble Company.25 An
analysis was made of 15 items in the personal-history record, correlating
iith superiors' estimates of supervisor's ability in order to discover
those items which conditioned success. Of the 15 items, only the follow-
ing four seemed to be significant: amount of schooling, ability to read
blue—prints, age, and military service and rank obtained. The method used

by Uhrbrock and Richardson will be discussed in detail by the writer later

since it was used in analyzing some of the data in this study.

 

2
in. S. Uhrbrock and M. W; Richardson, "Item Analysis, the Basis for

Constructing a Test for Forecasting Supervisory Ability," Personnel Jour.,
Vol. 12, 1933! PPO 1141-45”.

CHAPTER III
SOURCE AND METHOD OF COLLECTION OF DATA

From company records on file for two hundred female cafeteria count-
er workers chosen at random from employees of two large and established
firms in Chicago, Illinois, application blanks of the type shown in Fig-
ure 1 were completed. This application blank, with the exception of ques-
tions concerning relatives employed at the same concern, membership in
fraternal organizations, and insurance, was develOped after correspond»
ence with 31 representative cafeteria supervisors (Table I) in charge of
several hundred units. The application blank set up by the writer was
thus modified to represent a composite of these supervisors' views as to
what is usually, and what should be, included in the form.

The first concern, hereinafter referred to as Company A, contributed
59 cases; the remaining lhl cases were obtained from the second concern,
Company B. These same employees were then rated independently by super-
visors using the rating form reproduced in Figure 2. In Company A, two
persons were concerned with the rating; the organization of Company B was
such that it was necessary to use a total of forty-two raters, but only
two ratings per employee.

The establishments represented in Table I have been grouped into
eight different types with the manufacturing companies having the largest
representation. The patrons catered to are the employees of these
establishments with the exception of the schools in which students pre-

dominate.

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

amuommp hammeoo was» new common #0» obmm Feoqmudmca ham hence do» on

phase com pmsofipmuwcmmuo Hmsuopmum no mpfiao has on meoaop 505 on

Foams wsaxuo: mmbfipmflmn had nonpo . .pnoEmmwuuebod . phones are

. ecofinm . eehoamEe seaweed . hocewd scocfimppo pcmoaammm on» use com

 

 

.m .H
”meocmnomea or» mama .moqofiammxe mdofi>mam on ems o>mc 30% MH

 

 

 

posses saw.ene an: aspect macs pom asses can posses
.mmocoflnomxo or» puma on» memz 02 we» woodmanmmum mdowbonm

 

 

 

Hoonom mumps .mnh ewmaaoo .mah .m.m one» Hoonom umeamaw .muh “coaumosefi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

doacafino mo mew< ”mammafioh mnavdaoqfi pthQSw on gonads Hence

copmammem doouo>an dosed“: mamcflm defines:
”hufiamqoapmz «ooqeaomoam mdofiMwHom

know so mowmmam use: such; amooewod Hmofimhnm hq<
”sesame seen so samsm ”sesame ”seesaw

Fameapwo .m.D schema "mango me open
”waged much mo make ”dohommao open

”ouoom “Mom «sensed no oamz

 

 

unexaoa_m«nopommo mo madam a“ comb each noHmeangd

H ohdmfih

TABLE I

.A DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE OF THE ESTABLISHMENTS
WHOSE SUPERVISORS ASSISTED IN
FORMULATION OF APPLICATION

 

 

 

BLANK
Number
Type of Establishment of
Companies
Bank, TmSt Company....uoouo )4
Mail Order Companies.......... . 2
Printingeoooeeeooeo00000000000 3
Light Construction. Indus-
tries, and Utilities........ 3
Manufacturing Concerns........ 6
Meat Processing and Food
Production Industries....... 8
Chemical Laboratories......... 3
SChOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOO. 2

 

TotalOOOOOOOOOO;0.00.0000... 31

 

1h

 

 

.mnmEOumso .ommeamaoundumn .mno .muQSOumso
new: on» embellmuo acumen padoam madman on nodes .mnmaoamse
soda can exams «accuse seduces ruse op exumsou .uqesumsncm o» ado:
.HaMpomp uoz haasmmmooosm capamonme mega: deacon .cooa «amends madmamm
C: E “3 A3 A3

cam mhmEOpmso mo

pmaoaoumso mmmonIOplcumn on» ommmam on he» one mood
mega» unoAOMMac op hafidmms names segue: was» moon Ammasoambo OB ezmzembhnd .m

 

 

 

 

 

 

.pommm
.ooqmummmmm .cofimmmaaafi .mmoadnmn .ooqmnmomgm ouHcLMOd m
sash doom mobaw m ooqeumommd unopm mmoamamo ma mocmummmmd

A3 A3 «5 C: A:

«commemomam w.nomumm was» an whoaoumse so condemn cofimmeudaa on» ma pans ”noz<m<mmmw.m
.pmnam neEOpmso .vopmmfiOMpqm

one o>uom on one name: .eefip maps
.haxofiau escapee segue .mneaopmso obese m.uoaopmso pen» snowmen camp“:
HeEOpmdo mobnom toaam op memes o» asses aoeaom o>auceppm om neaoumdo me>uom

3 E t: A: A3

panoEOpmso we came

 

one» as asses ens opaeqousa means new as ens o>ssos one sense Hagen>aess was» «H ”mmazammaq .H

 

.hpaamdu on» no wcflcqmpm m.aoxuou

on» mmpauomod peep sown: mmmnnm esp e>opm hauoenad memonpcmnmm on» a“ ARV Moose mmmeam .haasm
lease haeb mcofipacfimmc on» omen ommmam moapmanomcfi was» new .douma mnfiop ma one mean: so mowed
IHmdU posse on» cans a“ hammoao mbmn o» hnmwmooeq ma pH segues was» swash on Mdaumampum ouomom
.deOd soon men men muck Hmdpom one no Hmdbflbudnd was» mums mmmoam ”mandmm oa mZOHaonmemzH

 

an steam

 

open

 

 

neon noa.mo manna

 

segue: mo mama

l‘l

.mumxuoh mfiaopommo no human a“ comb such deemm

m unease

15

 

 

 

.eumo once .oHpr .cofiamafiammao

.mboamaa ems op commas teamed ewmxmmum .menmflu mxmoup on hapmoo

0» names use see handmam . .omaooum_usm nebmz .noxaor mucocfioom

haopommmfipmm taco on umdfi flamenco mpcoaeboz Hd%enmo knob one mwmxmmam
“my “xv “NV AHV “my

~mpqodaoom rem mm:

ens magmas use masons mam page scones ens Haeoneo om season «as» «H "azazaaoz so amazaamn .e

 

.mdofiuem Amen .Hao: mcoflmu

 

 

 

 

.hHeOHm a“ as moox amen madden .hoxuoz .quHpchoo
ammo; pan poanmo can use .sexuor Beam knob sues Hmaaoc pom
mapmpmoood compo: ufigmm cages haeamnpxfi .hHOpomMmapmmcD succeeds doemm
Asa “NV Adv mow Anv
phpadagmu and woman an deuaumuomnmno mpneao>os m.nomaem was» and ”azmsmboz mo nmmmm .m
.nocqma
.enammoam .mumaopmdo .oudh m“.no quowpco>coo
m.amaopmdo oaom meumpau mHLSm pom moon Henna ca weed
we made IHH .uoEOpmdo .mmeOamfio on .uqmamoagcb .Hdmpoommoa
engage and padofimmfle on» pummmeam_dcm .aeccma mqaamop mH .mpfiaom
Mama mummuoh o» panacea“ mH oumuodwwcoo mH nuebo .hnodoaa cum Habao
A3 it as A3 A3

scoflvamommad pnmmmoam m ebmn one mood was msoopusoo somuem mam» mH ”mm224: .m

.xuo: «tempo
mama one dashes .uoxuoc
mdqmpm .hn new .hapaaoum who oweneem one am obese on team

0» «use: haso lacunae mebuom muck some am moon was nuawwsam

th Amv “ma Any

.mueaoomdo hams

.mne: when
.ucopmamcoo hp
Mao: on museum
meo mpuomflqmz

Asa

peace on» me enema

men can» once no as some as cc 0» mmeaMdHHHfib some common name moon unmet ca mmazazHAAHb .:

 

A.c.pnoov shaman

16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mnoEopodo .oonono nnon» an .oaonpoommom
mopmpnnnm .uaonpoomwdo onofionmso wan .oconpmow no one obnp
.oconuoomwdo ends on son tcnm an bnopomm Imam wsflxma an loommo .Hdm
mo ood omoapoma. dam con: mecca nuance bannmh obnpoommo poz [aanxo mono:
AS :5 :3 :3 AC
anemone omoono op onoaouoso wnncnm an muonpoom
noes essnnconaas ens nuance» ones sesame ans» mean ”mmmzonmso on maman ammeepm on nangnm< .nn
.oonono Joeenoo
.noonbnomsm aubmamono noom one oomqmnnm
hp oomno .mmodpooc .monmnc mo oodno baopmnnmonagm
unanno on coon no soma no: tuna cam moono mocmno nun: .bnopommonpmm
aooaom moosna paces gonna do doom monmoa cmoHo one noon on snot no: on
Icooao mo moon pace on was: .bpnno nopcmoo mbmeao nopndoo moonuanoono
CD :3 A3 A3 T3
A _ spoon cam cmoao pqoamnsvo
com .mommnd .oHpo» .nopsfioo non moon noonom was» moon Ammo: 2H mmmzadmz 924 mmmzHA24mqo .oa
.ucogmcoo osoondm
.mnoEopodo obmkad.onoaopodo .mnosoaoso owns» .onoaopodo name
no nannones unsunnnne smog unnnn ens: man unnnne manpnom
on» mcnbnow coho wcnbnoo an Iaooo some gas some oomsmnoo .ooonog Haok
some omoo pd Hammmooodm bnob wean: op oconm no odobnoz baamnocow
Ev A3, 43 :3 s3
amnoaopmoo mdnbnoo some donopmsHm bdnomo nos one oomo um nomnom one» oH «mmHom .m
.ononpnomoo .moonnom
ocoswnpom wcnxnoz Hmanoc bp mdoa now pooh thou bacon oaonuxo
.omoa banmmm .moon oopoommo pom pom co undue possmo nopmm cobo oswn»
on» no onmnm non IHHH mo omsmoop._leno.do0nnom ween .xnoz amounwna new no oocoonbo 02
mo onoo one» moo anon coda momoq non snot op oapd omp bane co coo .Han bHonon .mqonpm
A3 NS mm; Ti «3
. . annn sateen ego .eosMnsen
banmoo pom .msonpo on ohm pomp snot ansMon non bp homo doonom once moon «onaHQZOQ HdUfiMMMN .m

 

“6.283 onmmnn

17

 

.mdonw no m\H poo

nemne an «muonmm

.qonpoancomno on

oapoddo> boom
A:

.msonm oaddna
on» can» season
can m\n cam
leans on» use»
ofidmb mmoH mo

A3

an no: menooam be coneounqomno on»

.mnoMnoBIoo

mo m: odious
mo oemo convex“
.dfifioopofifib

31V

o» osHob nos co domnom was» open oomoam

.m\n
oadvaa om doom
as non sap m\n

pmoeoa can»
osamb onoa mo

liq

.mdonm mo m\H poo
urea an omqoaom

.nOnpmn

Ificmmno on
ofidob oHapnA
A my

.Boaop chemo ombonm obnw on» no one

 

£53 aflamEo .3

 

.bapoonnoo
doom one memo

 

.oonomxo .mamnnopms Indonwna omen»

.ofionnopoe nose oomamo .ooom wan quqonpnom Jnom .opmme

mo opmme bnoo moosmmoaonmo Idonpnom an psoa an mooaonoo mdnobd .Hnm

Iooooch oHupnq .Hdmoamoe bnob Iwudn doom moon on oosnaoaom Ionmo bnob
A3 A3 43 T: :V

bosom: bnmoooooqqs on on onocp pose on pooegnauo one

ocoom mdnfioqmn an bsoaooo own Hmsdnbnwnn was» moon

 

"mQOOh mzHAQZ4m_zH bsozoofi ho acmaodmm .NH

 

 

Acc.pnoov

onsmHh

18

The form represented in Figure 2 was deve10ped by C. L. Shartle,
Chief, Worker-Analysis Section, United States Employment Service, Washing-
ton, D. C.1 In correspondence dated June 28 and July 18, l9h0, and Feb-
ruary 6, l9hl, permission to use the form was granted, and the gradation
from best to poorest, represented by numerical values, for the qualita»
tive answers possible to each question was agreed upon. The order of the
grades of quality does not appear in constant sequence for each item,

thus avoiding a possible tendency on the part of the raters to be partial

toward a certain position on the sheet.

 

1Stead, Shartle, and Associates, Occupational Counseling Techniques,

American.Book Co.. 19MO.

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

A study of the distribution of the two hundred replies to each of

the questions included in the application blank, as summarized in Table

II and Table III, reveals their variable nature and dominant tendencies.

TABLE II

SUMMARY DATA REGARDING ITEMS ON THE TWO HUNDRED
APPLICATION FORMS

 

A. Qualitative Factors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item Numbers
BirthplaceOOOOOOOOOOCO00......C UOSO 183 ElseWhere 11
Citizen of the United States... Yes 190 No 9*
Nationality.................... American 62 Non-American 131
Conjugal Status................ Married 11 Single g1;

Widowed Divorced 10
Separated 9
Previous Experience
a. With this company........ Yes 22 No L1§
b. Elsewhere................ Yes 125 No 75
How Position was Obtained...... Agency 11 Another Employee 2
Friend Own.Accord z
Advertisementl Others ~-
Relatives Working Here......... Yes_fir 53 No 1kg
Religious Preference........... Catholic 8h Protestant 65
None 51
Right and Left Handed.......... Right 188 Left 12
Wears Glasses.................. Yes 35 N0 162
Insurance...................... Yes 67 No 133

 

 

 

'One has first papers only.

20

The summary of qualitative data regarding the 200 application forms
in Table II has been sorted from the qualitative items. It is interest-
ing to note the large number of non-Americans listed. This may be ex-
plained by the fact that the figure 131 includes foreign descent as well
as those actually born outside of the United States. As a matter of fact
only 11 employees were born in a foreign country. It is also interesting
to observe that the subjects of the sample are largely mature, experienced

workers of American origin without particularly striking educational qual-

 

 

 

 

ifications.
TABLE III
SUMMARY DATA.REGARDING ITEMS ON THE TWO HUNDRED
APPLICATION FORMS
B. Quantitative Factors
Arithmetic Standard
Factors Mean Deviation
About Mean
AgeeososseeoeeeeeeDesseoeeeeeeeeeeeee 39075 9073
weighteeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeee 1u5091 214007
Height............................... 63.58" 2.35
No. to support (include
ing 8e1f).eeoeooeeoeeoeooeeseeeeeee 10205 068
No. Of ChildrenCOOOOOOOOOOOOO00...... .8 7.30
No. of years education............... 9.30M 2.3M
No. of years experience
a. With this company............... 8.225 6.50
b. ElseWhereOOOOOCO......OOOOCOOOOO 2.355 3.69

 

In reference to the qualitative data given in Table III, the averages
for age, weight, height, etc. are given. It is interesting to note that
the average age for counter workers is 39.75 years. This figure is rather

high when compared to most commercial cafeterias. It is also interesting

21

to observe that the average counter worker has had a little over nine years
of education.

In analyzing the qualitative factors in the personal history blank
further, the employees were grouped in Table IV with respect to nation-
ality. Due to similarity in customs and languages. some nationalities
such as English, Scotch, and Irish were grouped together under the one

heading of British Isles. The same method was followed for the others.

TABLE IV

DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYEES BY NATIONALITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MW
‘ Co an A Co B Total
Nationality‘ mp y mpany

Num- Per- Num— Per— Num- Per-

ber cent ber cent ber cent

American............................. 15 25.h 5H 38.3 69 3h.5

German, Dutch, and Austrian.......... 11 18.6 19 13.5 30 15.0

British Isles........................ 10 16.9 25 17.7 35 17.5

scandlnaV1an CountrieSeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo 1 107 9 6014' 10 500
Balkan Countries and Bohemian

and.Polish......................... 10 16.9 18 12.8 28 1h.o
Combination of any two nation-

alitiesoooeeeooeeeeeeeeeeeoeeooeeeo 7 1109 8 5.7 15 705

Italianooeeeeeeeeeee0.000000000000000 3 501 7 5.0 10 500

FrenchQOOeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeoo 2 30,4 l 007 3 1.5

1
Total-0.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 59 100 11‘1 100 200 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘This does not necessarily mean birth in the country indicated.

With respect to the reasons for leaving their previous positions, the
writer grouped the data in Table V under three headings relating th the
employer, employee, and the ,job itself. It will be observed that of the
59 cases in Company A, a total of 58 reasons were listed for leaving the

previous job. Because of the fact that 19 of the present employees came

22

with no previous eXperience, it is concluded that some of the others may

have had two or more previous jobs.

TABLE V

REASONS FOR LEAVING PREVIOUS POSITIONS FOR
COMPANY.A

 

Factor Number
Reporting

 

Conditions relating to employer
1.ZBankruptcy'...............q...........
2. Out of business.......................
0 CODSOlidatedoeoeoeeeeeoeeooeoonoose-co
. Project closed........................

“JP‘RJON

Conditions relating to employee
1. Illness of self.......................
2. Illness in famiIYOeeeeeeeeeeeeoeoeeeee
a. Moved from city.......................
. Marriage..............................
5. Attend school.........................
6. Keep house............................
7. Death of mother....................... ‘

FOUJRJOHUEJFJ

Conditions relating to job itself
1. Too long hours........................
2. Insufficient wages....................
3. Night work............................
h. Better Job offered....................
5. Slack season..........................
6. Temporary.............................
7. Part time.............................

Fl
taxnranouatdru

 

With respect to the rating, it is evident that the analysis involved
the evaluation of each employee as regards the thirteen factors passed
upon by the judges, a summation of scores on individual factors to arrive
at a total score and a complete rating, and a check on the reliability of
the ratings thus obtained by means of a comparison of the ratings given

1
each of the subjects by the two independent scorers (supervisors). To

facilitate the compilation of the necessarily qualitative ratings, numeri-

23

cal values of one through five were assigned to the possible phrasal an—
swers to each question in such a manner that the quality rating varied
inversely with the numerical value.2 Thus the phrase which indicated the
poorest quality received the highest score, the latter becoming progres-
sively lower with improvement in quality as denoted by the terminology of
the phrasing used. In other words, the highest calibre employee carried
the lowest total score.

As set forth above, the usual policy of obtaining two independent
ratings for each employee and accepting the arithmetic mean of the two
as the value most closely approximating a true rating was followed. In
Company.A this procedure altered the final rating but little, since the
scores submitted by the first supervisor showed a highly significant corb
relation (+.966 2 .009) with those of the second supervisor. In the case
of Company B the coefficient of correlation between supervisors' scores
carried a positive value of .M21, with a standard error of .069, again a

highly significant figure. It would seem, therefore, that a reasonable

degree of reliability may be attached to the rating process.

 

1

.Assuming little noticeable change in individual worker efficiency
through time, the potential bias in rating the work performances of the
subjects (as the result of the operation of the personal equation of the
rater) would tend to be minimized if each employee were given at least
two ratings by each of the two scorers at two widely separated points
in time. Since this was not possible in this study, the rating process
was carried on over a period of months on the assumption that compensat-
ing error would function to some extent toward the removal of any persis-
tent bias in subject rating for the study as a whole.

2This procedure for the quantification of the rating form data is sub-
stantially in accord with that used in studies of a similar nature, among
which reference is made to the investigations of the Worker-Analysis Sec-
tion, Unived States Employment Service, Washington, D. C.

3For'detail as to scores assigned to the phrases under each question,
see the values as filled in on the sample rating sheet, Figure 2, p. 1h.

2h

_ The validity of this view is not lessened by the results of addi-
tional checks, since the coefficients of correlation between the scores
of item 13 (i.e., the overall rating) and total score computed by adding
individual item scores with and without the 13th item, indicate highly
significant relationships—~as do those between total scores when item 13

is in turn included and excluded.
TABLE VI

CHECKS ON THE RELIABILITY OF RATINGS FOR
COMPANY A AND COMPANY B

 

 

 

 

Correlation
Factors Coefficient Significance
ompany Company Company Company
A B A B
Total Score (inclusive of
item 13) and item 13 Highly Highly
score...................... +.89 +.73 Signif- Signifb
icant icant
Total Score (exclusive of
item 13) and item 13 Highly Highly
score...................... +085 *065 Slgnlf- Signif-
icant icant
Total Score (inclusive of
item 13) and Total Score 7 Highly Highly
(exclusive of item 13)..... +.99 4.99 Signif— Signifh
icant icant

 

 

 

 

 

The high correlation between the overall rating and the total score
(1-13) suggests that the use of item 13 alone as a means of rating employ-
ees might not reduce accuracy or introduce material error. although. much
less detailed information would beayadlable‘with respect to specific em-

ployee attributes.

The rating scores, computed by taking the simple arithmetic mean or

25

average of the ratings submitted by each supervisor, ranged from 15.5 to
h
51.5 with a mean value of 29.7 and a standard deviation of 6.37 for the

200 cases (Table VII).
TABLE VII

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL SCORES
====================F=======================================

 

 

 

 

Frequency

Class interval Company A Company B Total

Numb Perb ' Num- Per- Num- Per-

ber cent ber cent ber cent
15 - 19.9......... 5 8.5 9 6.h 1h 1h.9
20 - 2n.9......... 6 10.2 20 1h.2 26 2h.h
25 - 29.9......... 13 22.1 60 u2.6 73 6u.7
3o - 3h.9......... 13 22.1 35 2u.8 us u6.9
35 - 39.9......... 11 18.7 15 10.6 26 29.3
no - nu.9......... 8 13.6 2 1.h 10 15.0
N5 - h9.9......... 3.1 - -- 3.1
50 - 5u.9......... 1.7 - --- 1.7
Number............ 59 100 1H1 100 200 100
Mean.............. 52.195 28.620 29.675
*Standard
Deviation........ 8.079 5.150 6.371

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Refined.by Sheppard's Correction5

The sort by concerns revealed a skewness and inter-company difference
of no sizable pr0portion, although a leptokurtic tendency and a slight
skewness to the right was evident in the case of total and Company B data.
(See Figure 3).

Individual scores by items varied considerably. As would be expected,

 

Sheppard's Correction.

5N. D. Baten, Elementary Mathematical Statistics, McGraw—Hill Co. 1938.

 

8 e s s 3

Frequency m Percen'l'
'6‘

 

0 I I l
IO [5 20 25' 3O .35 40 45 50 55 60

FIgU‘re m
FTequeth PolngH: Percen‘l'age DnsTrIbuflon

O'F To‘f'al Scores by Companies and
Combined

    
 

To‘l'al of Ade
—— Cornpany A
---Codehy B

 

  

Nil.

Scores by Class Ih'f‘e'rval

27

perfect scores occurred more frequently than did the poorest values. A

study of the distribution of scores by supervisors, as given in Table

VIII, showed the greatest variation in the 7th item in the case of each

company, and no inter-company variation with respect to item 2.

TABLE VIII

DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYEE SCORES BY RATING SHEET ITEMS,
SUPERVISORS, AND COMPANIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Company.A
No. of Supervisor I Supervisor II , Average Seer: Deviap
item on ‘ per Question tion 3f
:zti:g Number of Euployees Number of Employee I Supervisor gagggvi-
°° Getting a.Score of Getting a.Score of sorsseores
1 2 3 h .5, 1 2 .3 u 5 7 I II from first
1 10 22 2h .- 3 11 21 an 1 2 , 2.39 2.36 -.03
2 9 16 an 3 7 9 16 2h 3 7 i 2.71 2.71 .00
a 17 1h 16 11 1 17 15 18 9 - 2.11 2.32 -.09
25 12 16 1 5 2h 13 15 2 5 f 2.1h 2.17 .03
5 15 26 16 2 - 13 3o 15 1 - g 2.08 2.07 -.01
6 25 1 20 12 1 26 1 19 12 1 g 2.38 2.3h «.oh
7 u 21 17 11 6 5 26 13 12 3 . 2.92 2.70 -.22
8 16 12 29 .. 2 17 12 28 1 1 1 2.32 2.27 -.05
9 12 13 1 17 3 13 13 15 16 2 2.76 2.68 -.08
10 3h 20 2 2 1 35 17 5 2 - : 1.58 1.56 -.02
11 h 10 22 23 .. 3 10 23 23 - ; 3.08 3.12 .0h
12 9 10 19 20 1 9 15 15 19 1 ; 2.22 2.80 .58
13 13 13 19 11 3 12 15 18 11 3 2.63 2.63 .00
Company B A”. ° 5
1 2 3 h 5 1 2 3 u 5
1 an M2 72 1 2 28 38 72 - 3 2.h 2.38 -.02
2 16 83 he 2 - 15 an M1 1 - 2.2 2.20 .00
a 6 o 51 3 1 3 nu 57 6 1 2.17 2.28 .11
3 3 51 3 1 3 37 60 - 1 2.12 2.1h .02
5 19 89 31 1 1 18 85 36 2 - 2.12 2.16 .0h
6 38 29 55 13 - 35 19 69 18 -- 2.39 2.50 .11
7 67 #7 19 h 80 38 17 7 -— 1.80 1.67 -.13
8 26 22 8o 6 7 3o 10 85 8 8 2.62 2.68 .06
9 27 26 71 13 h 22 28 71 18 2 2.58 2.65 .07
10 39 82 16 - 7 8h 13 6 1 1.90 1.93 .03
11 38 58 32 11 2 5 N8 3 9 .— 2.16 2.08 -.08
12 £2 71 22 9 - h5 72 1 10 - 2.01 1.92 ..33

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Disregarding sign.

lii'TUE"

28

Ayerage scores by questions revealed differences between companies

of no persistent pattern or serious magnitude, and of a.type not readily

explainable as shown in Table II.

TABLE IX

AVERAGE SCORES BY QUESTIONS AND BY COMPANY

 

 

 

 

 

Number;g§;QF§§3;on

7'”
1 2 3 11 5 6 7 8 9 10111213
Ayerage

Score:
Company A 2.1% 2.7 2914' 202 2e]- 2e)"' 2e8 2e3 2e? 1e6 301 2.8 2e6
CompanyB 2.11 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1+ 1.7 2.6 2.6 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.0
COHbined. 2.” 2.1!- 2.3 2.1 2.1 2e2 2e2 20h 2e6 2e? 206 2.’+ 2.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The histogram as illustrated in Figure A brings out the ayerage

scores per question (Table IX) with respect to both Company A and Company

B in such a manner as to point out the similarities and differences ready

ily. The marked difference on question number seven concerning dish

breakage may be explained by calling attention to the fact that the pa»

trons in Company A have a.common lunch hour during which time hundreds
rush into the cafeteria at one time for service. The counter workers,
in their rush to wait on the customers rapidly, might be more careless

in the handling of dishes than if the feeding were staggered as is the case
in Company B.

An inquiry into the relationships in Company A data between several

combinations of the factors on the rating sheet, as summarized in Table

X, point to significance in a sizable number of groupings. It is both

interesting and difficult to explain that neither appearance nor manner

Average Scares

3.5

3.3

3.1

2.9

2.7

N
an

N
Cu

/.9

(.7

/.5

T

I

I

 

Figure IE

Compa‘rqf’lve Averqge Scores

I Com/carry A
D Compdhy B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

01“ TWO Indus‘l’rlc/
CdFe‘I'erIas on Employees, Ra‘f’mg Scale

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/ Z 3 4- 5

6 7
Ques‘hon s

8

 

//

I2

/3

30

TABLE I

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCORES FOR SELECTED ITEMS ON THE
RATING SHEET (COMPANY A.DATA)*

Correlation Coefficient

   

 

Factors
Values“I
a. Appearance and:
1. P0186000...00.000000000000000.000...... .158
2. Adjustment to customers................ -.02M
3. MannerOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.....OOOOOOOOOOOOOO -01“
. Cleanliness and neatness in work....... -.031
5. Ability to suggest items to customers.. .277
b. Alertness and:
1. Speed of movement...................... .M91
2. Deftness of movement................... .h06
3. Ability to suggest to customers........ .628
. Physical Condition..................... .2h2
5. Ability to suggest items to customers.. .627
6. Adjustment to customers................ .Mhl
c. Manner and:
1. Willingness to work.................... .h23
2. Adjustment to customers................ .h07
a. P0188000.0.00.00.00.00...00.0.00...O... 0381‘
. Cleanliness and neatness in work....... .061
d. Over all and:
1. Deftness Of movement................... 0503
2. Phyeical conditioneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee .321
a. P01860000...O.......COOOOOOOOOOOOOO.... .551
. Cleanliness and neatness in work....... .358
5. Ability to suggest items............... .635
6. Appearanceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee .120
7. Adjustment to customers................ .512
8. Willingness to work.................... .59M
9. MannerOOOOOO.OOO.......OCOOCOCVOCOCOCCOO .237
10. Speed Of movement...‘OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. .723
11. Economy in handling food............... .550
12. nartnGBSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... .697

 

_‘.7

*The value of l‘ at the 5% point to be significant is .25 and at 1% point
is 32 for 59 cases.

*‘These correlation coefficients were calculated.under the direction of
Dr. W. D. Baten by one of his assistants.

31

correlate significantly with cleanliness and neatness in work. While
on the other hand,the ability to suggest items to customers was a func-
tion of alertness. These indications might lead one to conclude that
valid.predictions as to a certain phase of an employee's job performance
may be made from that employee's rating on an apparently related item;
for instance, that an alert counter worker tends to adjust most readily
and satisfactorily to variations in consumer attitudes. Or it might be
held that to the extent that significant inter-item relationships exist,
then to the same degree a modification of the rating sheet is in order.
Turning to analyses which are more basic to this study, it is exp
ceedingly striking that very few of the items on the application blank

bore even a remote relation to total score. As indicated in Table XI.

‘ TABLE XI

CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN TOTAL SCORES ON RATING SHEET
AND QUANTITATIVE ITEMS ON APPLICATION BLANK

 

Total score Correlation coefficients*

 

 

against °°mpany ‘6 c°mpanle (CommanyT363100mpany B)
Height..................... -o.063 0.08# 0.007
Weight..................... 0.031 -0.080 -0.039
Age........................ -0.182 -0.001 -o.065

Number of persons to sup-
port including self and

children................. 0.019 0.01)4 0.013
number of years of educa-

tioneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 00011 00021 00013
number of years experience

elsewhere................ 0.038 0.0”? 0.00”
Number of years experience

at present company....... -0.098 0.0h6 -0.011

 

 

 

 

I"Value of r required for significance is .273 at 5% point and .35u at the
1% point for 59 cases.

32

none of the factors on the application blank lending themselves readily
to numerical analysis correlated significantly with total score on the
rating sheet.

An alternative and less refined method of analysis. vis.. the test-
ing for significant differences between.group percentages derived from
subsorts, was used for several selected determinations. This procedure,
the summary data for which are found in Iables XII, XIII. XIV, and IV
also failed to reveal significant correlations between the variables
under consideration. However, a significant difference between factor
groupings sorted by scores was indicated in the case of no children and
two children. but not in the case of one and three. The difficulty of
accounting for this apparent inconsistency is an great as is the ease with
which the fact that no relationship was revealed between marital status

and total score is orplainable.

TIBLE III

ANALYSIS OF RELATIONSHIPS BETIEEN MARITAL STATUS ON
THE APPLICATION BLANK AND THE TOTAL SCORE‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Numbers Percentages
e «5 ... s I
3 g 1:» :3 f; :«z» :3 '2» § §
“ 3 8 “ 3’ 8 8
3 s s s 5‘ 3 s s s 5‘ E
High1 3:; s 10 5 a 57 13 17 s 5 100
Medium2 1h 19 3 50 17 at It 5 100
Low 33 11 7 2 2 04 1s 12 3 3 100
t a .. .7slt.oolm .8 but .56
6

R. S. Uhrbroch and M. I. Richardson re ort this technique in "Item
Analysis“, Pgrsopggl Jourgal. Vol. 12, pp. 1 l-l5h.

33

TABLE XIII

ANALYSIS OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN NUMBER OF CHILDREN ON
THE APPLICATION BLANK AND THE TOTAL SCORE’

_~_—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Numbers Percentages
O 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 100%
High1 2 8 32 18 2 13 5h 30 3 100
Med.um 10 8 17 5 13 61 21 6 100
Low 2 M7 9 2 3 79 15 3 100
TABLE XIV
ANALYSIS OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN EDUCATION ON
THE APPLICATION BLANK AND THE TOTAL SCORE*
mfg—mf—w
Numbers Percentages
Ҥ:yrs. 9-12 over 12 LE yrs. 9-12 over 10d%"
or less yrs. yrs. or less yrs. 12 yrs.
Highl 2 2h 33 3 NO 55 5 100
Medium 35 39 6 an M9 7 100
Low3 2M 3M 2 MO 57 3 100
t = O .2 .036

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE XV

ANALYSIS OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN AGE ON THE
APPHCATION BLANK AND THE TOTAL SCORE"I

Numbers Percentages

 

 

 

 

 

20-2u 25-39 to yrs. 20.2u 25-39 ho yrs. 100%

yrs. yrs. orover yrs. yrs. orover
Highl O 29 31 9 us 52 100
Med um? 2 M3 35 2 an un 100
Low 6 26 28 10 3 N7 100
t : .039 .0909 .182

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*The method of determining significant differences between percentages
as used herein is outlined in Mills, F. 0. Statistical Methods, 1938, pp.h83—h85.

*ivalue of t<bOfor the 5% point is 1.96. and for 1% POint 18 2053-

2
60 cases (upper 30% of scores): 80 cases (middle 30% of scores);
360 cases (lower 30% of scores). I

3h

In the processing of the data for the remaining items in the appli-
cation form with respect to rating sheet values, a summary tabulation was
made. .A casual glance at this information as presented in Table XVI seem-
ed to indicate that a test for significance between means was only neces-
sary in one case, viz., the item "insurance." The completion of this test
allowed this factor to be relegated to the non-significant group composed
of all the remaining items classified similarly by previous observation.

Conclusion. With respect to the 200 women cafeteria counter workers

 

studied herein, there is little or no basis for holding that statistically
significant relationships of importance exist between the information ask-
ed for on the personal history application blank. and the replies thereon,
to work performance or success on the job. It may thus be possible to

state that, if the efficiency of the application form mechanism as regards
the selection of employees is not absolutely without value, it is at least

highly unsatisfactory.

TABLE XVI

FACTORS WITH RESPECT TO AVERAGE SCORES

BY COMPANIES

35

 

 

Factor

Nu. of Employees

 

Average Score

 

 

 

Company Company Total Company Company Total
A B A B
Birthplace
United States.......... 52 137 189 32.2 27.0 30.9
Elsewhere.............. 7 h 11 33.1 26.8 29.6
Citizen of U. S.
Yes.................... 57 133 190 32.0 28.M 29.h
No..................... 7 2 9 31.1 33.2 32.2
Nationality .
American....;1......... N3 5N 69 33.0 27.7 28.8
Non~American........... 87 131 32.0 28.6 29.7
Previous Experience
With This Company
Yes.................. 59 lhl 200 O 0 0
No................... 0 O 0 0 O 0
Elsewhere
Yes.................. no 85 125 32.1 28.7 29.8
No................... 19 56 75 31.9 27.7 28.8
How Position las Obtained . .
Agency................. 5 6 11 31.1 29.8 30.h
Friend................. 2N 39 63 32.0 28.1 29.6
Advertise.e............ 1 6 7 1905 2906 2801
Another Employee....... 1h 58 72 31.5 27.M 28.2
Own Accord............. 15 32 N7 33.7 29.7 31.0
0thers................. 0 O 0 O 0 O
Relatives'florking’Here
Yes.................... 12 N6 58 32.8 27.N 28.5
N0..................... N7 95 1N2 31.8 28.8 29.8
Religious Preference
Catholic............... 15 69 8N 32.N 28.2 28.8
Protestant............. 18 M7 65 29.8 28.2 28.6
None................... 26 25 51 3391‘ 28.9 3102
Insurance
Yes?................... 37 30 67 32.6 22.N 28.0
No..................... 22 111 133 31.2 29.9 30.1
Wears Glasses
Yes.................... 17 21 38 3h.9 29.1 31.7
N0..................... N2 120 162 30.9 28.2 28.9
Handed
Left................... 1 11 12 28.0 30.7 30.5
Right.................. 58 130 188 32.1 28.1 29.N

 

 

 

 

 

 

l"Average Scores Tested for Significance Between Groups as Indicated by R. V.

Fisher, "Statistical Methods For Research Workers.“

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY

The nature of modern industrial organization renders employee-job
relations an issue of prime importance. Much has been done of late in an
effort to facilitate the placing of the prOper person in the prOper posi-
tion at the prOper time. This study represents an inquiry into the ef-
ficacy of the commonly used personal history application form as an in-
strument leading toward this end. Two hundred female cafeteria counter
workers of two large industrial firms in Chicago, Illinois, were selected
at random, their application form data compiled from company records and
correlated against their job performance rating as measured by the aver-
aged scores of two independent supervisor gradings. While some inter-re-
lationships among several of the item scores on the rating sheet were
indicated by supplementary analyses, suggesting a possible simplifica-
tion of the rating process, and while other facts of interest were reveal-
ed, the study as a whole failed to disclose statistically significant re-
lationships between the items on the application form and worker accomplish-
ment. The results of the study seem to suggest that the application form
as commonly used in the selection of cafeteria workers contributes nothing
to the accuracy of the selection process. There may thus exist a justi-
fied basis for a practical inference to the effect that, barring the elim-
ination of "deadwbod", little economic or social gain derives from the use
of the application form as a tool for facilitating the hiring process in
the interests of the immediate parties concerned as well as society as a

whole.

37

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Laird, D. A., The Psychology g: Selecting Employees, McGrawbHill, 1937.

 

 

Mathewson, S. B., "A Survey of Personnel Management in 195 Concerns,"
Personnel Journal. Vol. 10, 1931-1932. ‘

Moore, Herbert, Psychology for Business and Industry, McGraw—Hill Co.,
1939-

Burtt, H. E.. Employment Psychology} Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1926.

 

 

Bingham, W. V. D., and M. Freyd, Procedures ig_Employment Psychology,
McGraw-Hill CO., 1926.

 

 

Hackett, J. D.. "The Art of Interviewing Workers," Industrial Management,
Vol. 60, 1920.

 

Wonderlic, E. F., "Personnel As A Control Function," Personnel, Vol. 1“,
(N00 1). 19370

Morgan, E. B., "Interviewing for Selection," Industrial Management,
Vol. 61, 1921

 

Mills, J.,"Engineering Aptitudes! Journal pf Personnel Research, Vol. 3,
l92h—25.

 

O'Rourke, L. J.,'Measuring Judgment and Resourcefulnessr.Personnel Jour-
nal, Vol. 7, 1928-29.

 

Craig, D. G., "Analysis of Personnel Forms," Industrial Management, Vol.
70. 1925-

 

Clarke, J. B. M. “Concerning Application Forms," Industrial Management,
Vol. 71, 1925, Vol. 72, 1926.

 

Francis, A. G., Illinois Bell Telephone Co., Chicago, (Correspondence).
Service Bulletin for June 1923, Bureau of Personnel Research.

Kitson, H. D., "Height and Weight as Factors in Salesmanship," Journal
g£_Personnel Research, Vol. 1, 1922-1923.

Goldsmith, Dorothy, “The Use of the Personal History Blank as a Sales-
manship Test,“ Journal affiApplied Psycholggz, Vol. 6, 1922.

 

Russel, W., and G. V. Cape, "A Method of Rating the History and Achieve-
ment of Applicants for Positions, Public Personnel Studies, Vol. 3,
(No. 7), 1925.

38

Viteles, Morris, The Science 25 Work, W. W. Norton and Company, 1933.

 

Uhrbrock, R. S., and Richardson, M. W., "Item Analysis, the Basis for
Constructing a Test for Forecasting Supervisory.AbilityJ'Personnel
Journal, Vol. 12,1933.

Shartle, C. L., Chief, United States Employment Service, Washington, D. C.
(CorreSpondence).

Stead, Shartle, and.Associates, Occupational Counseling Techniques, Ameri-
can Book Company, 19h0.

Baten, W. D., Elementary Mathematical Statistics, McGraw-Hill Co.. 1938.

Mills. F. 0., Statistical Methods, Henry Holt and Co.. 1938.

 

Fisher, R. A., Statistical Methods for Research Workers, Oliver and Boyd,
London, 1936.

..fl. .247- .. I;

0....85 .0 e. .r.a-E..e suing! Y” ‘uarWfllle;

...). J.) .40.)

filtrfaztg Inset? ,

. w

:15... . .

.u...~4'vv.w J-IJHA‘IJ,

 

. A. i" .'_f., “ ‘If'.l, "' .‘.' 0~

 
   
   
    

‘. ‘ .‘1 I ‘ f ‘ . . ' . . . . 4 , .
. I ' ' G ". . ~ ‘ . - '1 ‘ . ' ‘ .. . . § , '. ‘. 9".'
- ’ " ‘ . -‘M l " :‘ I “ ~" ' ..I ‘2'. a ‘i ‘ .1 ' ’-~ A ‘. '. .’ '.« ' v" .. ‘. ',“. '. ' . .. ‘v‘ ' I
‘ I. {V . " ‘I. ."; . t ’. ." .' . ". Lu” J l J‘q ' ‘ l\ x J. _-_ I AM . . . ' ;-' \r," 1 , ‘ ‘ . . - \ .‘ )
5| . 1“; .‘fa ‘$‘_‘vt '. .. _.:-’ ‘.:.""" 7. OJ"‘S\\".‘ ’ ‘0 . \‘ .. |. K“ '. ., . “If-.4. gt fill I'll" ‘. _ 2‘ ’ . V k- ‘ ..‘i _. r _"I . '-
. ' 9". 1.... 'M. .4 -\7'-V‘ _' so ...4 p ‘ . 1.. F , H. \ '4. ' I“? an; a at: 8,1 ... - . . 3’ 7 . I V .. ...
:Q-‘y: 3‘ _ e ;.. ..‘fi‘w ~r-X’. ‘é, has, : Y .. ,‘ V ‘~,‘ -Q A.‘( I. -‘ ,\ .I'A¢° _- . f‘l\ \ a I.' ’V . ' ‘
’ T t“ I" 'it‘yfiflng’“"t.‘7’- " sun. “fl“..m” 3’s ire. A4355 *‘i‘ “WI/w} A» .‘ ‘ ’--' ‘A‘vw ‘- .7 r N" 3‘ ' -- x -‘ ‘
' .-' ,- ." . I ‘-_ I‘ p .1. a «,1 J- . I v ’- i _ “ e 1 . ..' _ " 5.3 I ‘ ..., , , 3‘. -
Q T? ‘\_-.' ‘ . 1' a“; -‘4>)" U "a‘kl‘ma. ’~ .7 . :PVO"‘ 'l'.'\. .7 t. v (w ,L: 'f 1’ £1 'I‘I'J.” - ...» ’ 1 K
‘, .’ r - ,.. ... . ... .7 .- . _ ' t‘. l s ‘ -o
, . ‘ . .. u
{I - w t ‘ ‘ ' ' 1 — 1
.-. . ~ . ' z . ‘ ' ' 7 ' ‘ ‘ '3 . ' '. -’ v '- Ie ‘
'.;Q ., . \ A ,7 l. _, , -l . |‘ ' ‘ . ev‘ , ',\ I ' '7 | ,- L ‘ I .- l
‘ u . — ‘. ' A - . . I
‘u‘ 'I' 1' a ‘Z . -' ' \s r . .' .j‘ 9‘ .‘F 'r . I . ’ a \ ‘ I ‘ s '
. ,'..,_ ‘ ' . ‘ ' . .4. .. .s . ‘ ¢.tt ‘_~ ,- ,1. n ‘ .’ ‘ H...‘ .‘
. - , w .. » ‘- - ~ . - '~ ‘ a
,: a" 4" 'A. r 71):“ 1 - z .. I .' I a 1.. J a‘ I, .... . ‘V'v 4 ‘1“ e’.‘ 4f I 1‘; '. ' , _ ‘IV‘ ' 3"“. - ._ l‘. \p i. v . ‘ 7 . . . .. . ‘. :’.-"..' I.
r‘ a,» - - ‘ .75.” 'I zw ‘ A " " ”“31". ‘ ‘ ‘ " -‘ “r . "A J. 41" ' "."L- " ‘ '.. .' :‘A ‘5'“ ‘
' . .' ' - l A t‘ J - ~e" ‘ .- '. o ‘ ~\ - -3- ' -.- ‘ . " .- ' ‘ V"
. r‘.‘~x..c»,- w: Wu .“e 'r’T‘ — . ‘. . 5-..7: WI". ‘ a 2‘ ~~~ :. .--' .
' ' at '2‘ a. . i‘,‘ b. L . A ,L.‘ J 4 . ‘ ARR A; w' ‘5 ‘~‘ _".~ '7 ’W’ .‘5 1 r‘ ‘3 $1 ' -‘_ L 3' 3" ‘ 4"
, nt. ,_ -\ -. \w.-\- ._,....- ... H'-
J‘ 1,." ' Q5 ‘ " '. \‘ ‘\ .'. J x _ ‘#‘_ ' ' ‘. '~ 1 ‘. u v (7 . a , ht ' . ‘ . 1‘. A ' '
a!“ - 3‘9,‘ \~ J.. 1‘ .... '—' ' “W. ‘ ‘7 ”VA”. '1' ~ ~- 5 e . w’ I - '
T ‘f-._ “A {‘5‘ 4.)\\ 2}" 3 ’ 'H ' ‘tecn -..’ ‘ i. 1.4 tv‘ . .-."{ ..’ ‘\ .-..‘ I -“ .~ .3 ‘ A
1 .9. we» .... . u an. , M ...t... . ex.-. .
i

     
   
  
 
   
     
 
   

f

. ~

~. . ;.' ,

. {JET}? ’0
. A

p"
.1.
5
A
T
V
'1‘, U‘
.' .‘.
I
I
-(
r3?
5.;1.‘.: ..'. .

{‘1}
Aft-V53

0
{hr

.

7‘0
"I

.

i

.
a ' -
w l
667».

  

. I L
. ‘ .- l . . _‘ '. 1? ,
I;‘IF:?"‘ 0., ‘3 '\ _-' .3 .. ‘:|_!.‘ \t .
. , ‘ “.-- . , . l A I 7' it t. I: ‘ S1: 7. 1 - . ‘v\-~ .-'- ..
’1‘?)- 7 ‘- 4‘; 'v V > '1 N: g "l “I ‘J " 7
u -- . . ' '. . I
k a u . ..h A... .35.. . .. ;>( - r
._ ’on‘s‘ ..' ‘ . ‘a v
. . l .4... ~' ..‘0 -) .t‘ 3
Ir. ' . . . .3 ' -

      

..-r
.3324

. a

‘.__. ‘7, ' . " Itu. tr

..“: 5}: “$.- .31
. .1; ~ .{g “(v-7;

‘ . . I . -

‘ U j ‘4'. Ff}: s:

. ‘ ’7.
a .
.. - ‘5' ‘--
.~ ‘ ' _,‘ ‘7‘ .
' - a
' w - f e
N' I ‘. '~/' ’
, ' ‘- ‘1'!
v" - e“ I
r' A].
2 \ -
l

5.1.1.. ..

r2 ,3 '
I ‘ v.56:
L{marry 'it

«’1' - ' .
”A.

  

'3'.)
. K"

v

...

   

‘
~ "u‘.
‘ \' 7‘71! .
.ré'

-. _/ - . ».. q “‘3 . .. _'_ ' - .. _..\ . .~, g. ‘ _ . I - " .
"t 47; up. await-“(tin :3“.- '. nag. , . "a. 5- -. .- . _ - -
‘.'.-‘.a 1“ Jr- ”512's... J * r" we... 42%: -‘ ’2‘ - .v ' " v" . *‘V ,. -- . . " ' . .-
'_-\ ,_ , “fl ». .. 1‘14“” _. . . _ _‘ ‘ ._ ‘ ' ‘ '\.'-A“ _ . -' _ ‘ , ' .‘ '. ' .. ".' " .. ‘
‘ .‘k . ‘ .; . I; . ‘ - .-.. . ' ‘ I. ‘ -_ \- . . . 2'. .1 ‘ .' ' . ' , ‘ --A_ :. _ -

is I.
313M"

31'

724

0 082

 

I!
RI
I
All
I
RI
I
all
'I"
Ll
'
l
l
'2
I
I
l
sul I .
'.
Rlll I .
I
E
I
v
I
'l'
N
l
l
l
I
l
'
,3
T,
l
['9
l
'2
l
I,
I
I
l
l
I
I
I
I
l
l
I
I
l
I