AI job analysis & job relevancy (Concerns 2–3)

Professional standards, legal guidelines, and case law all require selection systems to be tied to job requirements, established through an analysis of work (Morgeson et al., 2020). For AI tools built from convenient or scraped data, this is frequently the weakest link. (The article treats these two concerns together because requirements for a job analysis are hard to separate from job relevancy.)

This skill is the AI-specific framing; for how to conduct a work analysis, use work-analysis.

Why job analysis matters here

• Traditionally, job analysis is the basis for identifying the KSAOs required and the appropriate

variables for selection, and for developing criteria / defining the performance domain.

• Uniform Guidelines §14B(2) requires a review of job information for criterion-related validity;

the Principles state job analysis defines appropriate predictors and establishes the relevance of the criteria.

• In practice, many test users skip or abbreviate job analysis — assuming, say, that all sales

jobs are alike and a generic "sales test" transfers. Without a job analysis you cannot know (a) that the test's purported skills are the ones predicting in this organization, or (b) that the skills the job requires match those the test measures. Predictors and criteria may then be wrong, inadequate, or unfair.

Is job analysis still needed when predictor–criterion relationships are strong?

A live question: if a predictor set empirically predicts a criterion (locally or meta-analytically), does job relatedness still need a job analysis? Risks of saying "no": a spurious relationship can masquerade as job relatedness. Example: "leadership experience" correlates with managerial performance, but gender also correlates with both (men more often given leadership opportunities) — gender should be irrelevant, yet the relationship may be found. Like ZIP-code-as-race in credit scoring, AI's millions of correlations can rest decisions on hidden, illegitimate relationships. Without a job analysis to identify, define, and measure the KSAOs, predictors and criteria "may be used that are wrong, inadequate, or unfair."

Forms and rigor of job analysis

• Legal/professional guidelines allow many acceptable methods but are silent on how

comprehensive the analysis must be. Guardians (2d Cir. 1980) holds job analysis should be systematic and accurate regardless of methodology.

• Competency models: many test publishers apply a standard competency model across

organizations, with loose ties to the actual tasks/behaviors of incumbents. Competencies may be specific KSAOs, broad KSAOs, or even organizational aspirations ("Demonstrates amazing customer service at all times"). Generic competency lists (e.g., Hunt, 1996) used for all jobs/levels for efficiency may not be complete relative to a specific job. Test publishers often omit a critical competency the test doesn't measure.

• ONET is a useful starting point for tasks/KSAOs but should not substitute for a complete

job analysis (it has limitations given how the data were collected).

• Collecting task information (frequency/importance ratings): UGESP requires measures of task

importance/criticality and documents them as Essential (§15B(3)). This step is often skipped, yet collecting task ratings orients SMEs to actual job requirements and away from stereotypes — and reliability/validity of KSAO judgments rises when KSAOs are concrete and tied to specific tasks (Morgeson et al., 2020, p. 375).

• SME judgment quality: interrater agreement (ICC) assumes SMEs are similarly knowledgeable or

trained — an assumption rarely evaluated in practice.

Job relevancy / job relatedness (the legal anchor)

• Job relevancy = the core features of a job (KSAOs, work behaviors, environment), determined by

job analysis. U.S. law requires job relatedness for tests with adverse impact (Title VII disparate impact → "job related for the position and consistent with business necessity").

• The Uniform Guidelines establish the explicit requirement to conduct a job analysis whenever

undertaking a criterion-related validation study (§3.14(A)).

• The Principles allow several routes to job relatedness: appropriate criterion-related validity

coefficients, the job relevance of the content, or the construct measured (Principles, p. 90). Validity is a function of evidence supporting interpretation for specific purposes.

• The AI gap: technologically enhanced tools may predict outcomes ("job related" in a

statistical sense) yet not be based in a job analysis — leaving job relevance unestablished and legal defensibility weak.

Questions to ask (from the article)

• Is a job analysis necessary if predictors and criteria are strongly related in a criterion-related

study?

• Is a job analysis necessary to justify an operational performance measure (e.g., KPIs) used as the

validation criterion?

• To what extent is a competency model an adequate substitute for a job analysis?
• Is it important to have a complete list of competencies?
• How much rigor in the job-analysis methodology is necessary to establish job requirements?
• Is ONET an acceptable source for a complete list of KSAOs?
• Is it important to collect task information (e.g., frequency and importance ratings)?
• If a job analysis is not conducted, can job relevancy be demonstrated for the assessments or the

criteria? Is predictor–criterion correlation alone sufficient to establish job relatedness under the Uniform Guidelines?

Pitfalls

• Deploying a generic "sales test" (or vendor competency model) without analyzing the local job.
• Treating a strong predictor–criterion correlation as proof of job relatedness (spurious/proxy risk).
• Using ONET or an aspirational competency list as a complete job analysis.
• Skipping task importance ratings, then over-relying on stereotype-tinged SME KSAO judgments.
• Never checking whether SMEs are comparably knowledgeable before trusting interrater agreement.

Checklist

• ] A systematic, accurate job analysis underlies predictors and criteria (or its absence is flagged)
• ] Spurious/proxy relationships ruled out via job-analytic grounding
• ] Competency model's rigor and completeness for the specific job evaluated
• ] ONET used only as a starting point, not a substitute
• ] Task importance/criticality information collected and documented
• ] SME comparability assessed before relying on agreement statistics
• ] Job-relatedness route (criterion / content / construct) identified for legal defensibility

See also

work-analysis (how-to) · ai-predictor-theoretical-basis · ai-validity-evidence · ai-selection-legal-landscape · ai-input-data-and-design-audit

Source: Tippins, Oswald & McPhail (2021), Concerns: "Job Analysis" and "Job Relevancy."