Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Job analysis is one of the most important and widely used processes to determine job duties, identify and reduce potential risks, and specify the skills and facilities required for each job at the highest level of occupational safety and health.

OBJECTIVE:

This study aimed to perform psychometric analyses of the Persian version of the Fleishman Job Analysis Survey (FJAS).

METHODS:

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 31 drivers. Participants were selected by random sampling. Ten occupational health and ergonomics experts confirmed the validity of the survey. First, we calculated the survey’s CVR and CVI. Then, we used ICC and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients to evaluate the survey’s reliability. Data analysis utilized SPSS 21.

RESULTS:

78% of the participants were male and 22% were female. The mean age±SD of the participants was 39.1±11.82 years. The reliability and validity of the short version survey showed that the value of ICC and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.96, and CVR was 0.75. Moreover, the values of CVI for simplicity, clarity, and relevance were 0.87, 1, and 0.73, respectively. The long version’s ICC and CVR were 0.96 and 0.97, respectively. Simplicity, clarity, and relevance CVI scores were 0.9, 0.94, and 0.95.

CONCLUSION:

The results of this study showed that the Persian version of the Fleischman Job Analysis Survey has the necessary validity and reliability for job analysis, so it can be used for driving professional or research purposes. Moreover, this survey is an effective tool for obtaining accurate and complete knowledge of job tasks and requirements.

Keywords

Questionnaire validity reliability

1 Introduction

Today, the complexity of systems and the necessity to deal with challenging tasks have increased [1, 2]. Hence, the need for a skilled and experienced workforce has increased. The incidence of human error has increased due to the lack of accurate job analysis. The results of the present study showed that the Persian version of the Fleishman Job Analysis Survey (FJAS) has the necessary validity and reliability to be used for the driving profession or research purposes. Moreover, this survey is appropriate for accurate and complete knowledge of job tasks and requirements [3, 4].

Costs due to accidents and work-related illnesses in some developing countries are about 4 to 31 percent of factory profits. An examination of the incidence of industrial accidents in the world shows that deaths due to workplace accidents occur every 2 minutes worldwide. This figure is at least four times higher than the global average in developing countries. Due to the growing industrialization in the world, it is predicted that by 2020, 250 million work-related accidents with absenteeism will occur annually. According to an estimate, on average, at least one person dies every hour in Iran due to various accidents. The cost of non-compliance with safety rules and principles is equivalent to the oil export revenue of the country [5].

Job analysis is one of the most important and widely used processes to determine job duties, identify and reduce potential risks, specify the skills and facilities required for each job, and ultimately improve safety and health [6–8]. Job duties are also evolving with environmental and industrial changes due to the advancement of industry and technology; therefore, job duties should be evaluated periodically [9]. In general, job analysis and design science explain the conditions for obtaining a job and offers suggestions on job design to identify the right people to improve the organization’s productivity. However, this can be much more complicated for organizations with different job positions. Therefore, the science of job analysis with a systematic approach divides jobs into smaller components so that their various dimensions become more evident. As a result, it is easy to select the right people to be placed in different positions [10, 11].

In the field of job analysis, numerous methods have been used, but no consistent solution has been developed. Job analysts use different methods to collect and process data depending on their abilities, organizational capacity, and facilities. These methods include using previous data, observations, employees’ diaries, task analysis, interviews, combined job analysis methods, questionnaires, and advanced job analysis techniques [12]. In this regard, standard self-report questionnaires are considered the most important and widely used evaluation tools due to their cheapness and ease of summarizing and analyzing the results [13].

Several questionnaires help job analysts collect more organized and measurable information, such as the FJAS, NEO Job Profiler Questionnaire, and Job Position Analysis Questionnaire. It should be noted that a job position analysis questionnaire is more beneficial for jobs whose methods of performing are particular and repetitive. This questionnaire does not give desired results for professional and supervisory jobs, so one should use a sufficiently comprehensive questionnaire. Among the questionnaires, FJAS is one of the most widely used surveys for job analysis. Moreover, this survey can comparatively rate the requirement scale for different tasks. This survey aims to identify the physical, cognitive, and social abilities required to perform the tasks of a job. Several specialists and experts complete this survey by scoring each of the abilities. Based on the obtained scores, the most significant abilities that are required for a job can be extracted and used these in hiring decisions. Additionally, the results of this instrument can be a guide for defining purposeful educational and training courses [14, 15]. Previous studies have also shown that using FJAS can effectively, wholly, and accurately recognize job tasks and requirements [16–18].

Given the importance of job analysis and its effects on various aspects of occupational safety, health, satisfaction, and job performance, as well as the need for a relatively comprehensive job analysis tool, this study aims to analyze the psychometric properties of the Persian version of FJAS.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Participants

This cross-sectional-analytical study was performed on 31 urban drivers in Shiraz and Tehran as a self-report evaluation. Participants were selected by random sampling. All participants voluntarily participated and signed a written informed consent form. Moreover, before data collection, the participants gave their written and oral consent for participating in the study.

The data collection was completed by researchers so that they give the FJAS kit to the voluntary participants and explain the method thoroughly so that they should answer the questions and rate the items. After a week, they handed over the completed survey. They also had the opportunity to ask questions and receive explanations while completing the FJAS.

2.2 Fleishman Job Analysis Survey (FJAS)

The short and long version of FJAS (also known as “requirement scale”), which is a cognitive task analysis survey, addresses many cognitive requirements. This instrument can analyze working conditions at three levels: job level analysis, job dimension analysis, and task level analysis. Participants are asked to score 1 to 7 according to their level of cognitive requirements for their job based on FJAS, which uses a 7-point scale. This survey includes 52 cognitive abilities and 21 social/interpersonal abilities. The cognitive abilities include 21 cognitive, 10 psychomotor, 9 physical, and 12 sensory/perceptual abilities [19, 20].

In the case of each group of requirements, there is a definition of each requirement on a page, and while comparing that definition with another one, there are 7 points Likert on the same page that each person can save her/his point of view. All the discussed requirements were presented in a booklet, and 31 participants were asked to rate the requirements in terms of the conditions of the specific tasks according to the plan provided by the method. Finally, according to this method, the total points for each requirement are taken and compared with the requirements ranking.

2.3 Data analysis

In this study, the reliability of the instrument was evaluated by the test-retest method, and the test questions were given twice within one month to a single group under similar conditions. The obtained scores were compared based on the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. This is the most widely used coefficient for measuring the internal consistency [21–30] and inter-item correlation of the items in a questionnaire. The alpha value must be at least 0.7 or higher for a question to remain in the questionnaire. However, many researchers consider 0.8 a necessary value for a question to stay in the questionnaire. A reliability of 0.7 indicates 70% consistency of the scores or points obtained from an instrument [31, 32].

Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient is proper when the questions of a tool are not scored as true-false options. This coefficient measures the internal consistency of questions for Likert-type scales [31, 33].

In 2003, an alpha value of greater than 0.9 was excellent, 0.8–0.9 good, 0.8–0.7 acceptable, 0.6–0.7 debatable, 0.5–0.6 weak, and less than 0.5 unacceptable [34, 35].

To evaluate the content validity of the survey, the judgment of experts in the field of interest was used. To ensure the most important, accurate content (necessity of item) was selected, the content validity ratio (CVR) was used, and the content validity index (CVI) was applied to ensure that the tool items were designed appropriately to validate the content. To determine CVR quantitatively, ten occupational health and ergonomics specialists and experts were consulted (four had a master’s degree and six had Ph.D. and were faculty members at the university). They were thoroughly acquainted with the research methodology to respond to tool items or the rating scales, including “necessary,” “useful but not necessary,” and “not necessary.” The survey was sent to the experts by e-mail, and additional explanations were given, so they had enough time to provide accurate answers. This fact, as well as their voluntary involvement, led to higher validity of the answers. Finally, the value of CVR for each question in the survey was determined based on equation 1 [36–41]. $CVR = \frac{n_{E} - \frac{N}{2}}{\frac{N}{2}}$ (1)

N: Total number of specialists

N_E: Number of specialists who have responded “necessary”

According to Lawshe, given the number of experts for determining content validity (ten experts), phrases with a CVR above 0.62 should be retained in the questionnaire, and the rest should be discarded [42].

To calculate the CVI of the instrument, the same experts were asked to check each of the three criteria, relevance or specificity, simplicity or fluency, and clarity or transparency, based on a 4-point rating scale (scores 1 to 4). The rating scales of the three criteria are as follows:

Not simple, somewhat simple, quite simple, and very simple;

Not clear, somewhat clear, quite clear, and very clear;

Not relevant, somewhat relevant, quite relevant, and very relevant.

The CVI for each phrase is calculated by dividing the number of experts who rate 3 or 4 (entirely related or very relevant; clear or quite clear; simple or completely simple) by the total number of experts. The minimum acceptable value for this index is 0.7 [42–44]. Finally, data analysis was performed using SPSS software version 21.

2.4 Ethical considerations

All participants voluntarily took part in the research and received a full explanation of the method. They could leave the project at any time. All participants voluntarily participated and signed a written informed consent form. Both written and verbal consent for participation in the research was obtained before data collection. This research involves no more than minimal risk to subjects. This study was approved by Tabriz University of Medical Sciences and all ethical considerations set by the Iran National Committee for Ethics in Biomedical Research were considered.

3 Results

In this study, 78% of the participants were male, and 22% were female. The mean age±standard deviation (SD) of the participants was 39.1±11.82 years. The results of reliability and validity of the short version survey showed that the value of the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the survey were 0.96 and CVR was 0.75. Moreover, the values of CVI for simplicity, clarity, and relevance were 0.87, 1, and 0.73, respectively. The lowest short-term reliability score for the oral fact-finding parameter was 0.91, and the highest score for adaptation, social sensitivity, self-control, and oral defense was 1. Because these values were higher than the considered values, the validity and reliability of the short version survey were acceptable (Table 1).

Table 1
Validity and reliability results of the short version survey based on the areas of the survey

Scale Social/Interpersonal Mean SD Cronbach Alpha ICC CVR CVI

Simplicity Clarity Relevance

Social/interpersonal abilities Agreeableness 2.35 1.6 1 1 0.87 1 1 0.82

Behavior Flexibility 3.35 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.87 1 1 0.82

Coordination 3.13 0.76 0.97 0.97 0.87 1 1 0.82

Dependability 5.39 1.31 0.95 0.95 0.87 1 1 0.82

Assertiveness 1.71 1.04 0.93 0.93 0.625 1 1 0.64

Negotiation 1.52 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.625 1 1 0.64

Persuasion 1.32 0.48 0.92 0.92 0.625 0.8 1 0.64

Sociability 2.97 1.33 0.98 0.98 0.87 0.8 1 0.82

Social Conformity 4.03 1.11 0.98 0.98 0.87 0.8 1 0.82

Social Sensitivity 3.94 1.29 1 1 0.625 0.8 1 0.64

Self-Control 5.06 0.77 1 1 0.625 0.8 1 0.64

Social Confidence 3.29 1.27 0.99 0.99 0.625 0.8 1 0.64

Coaching 2.19 0.79 0.97 0.97 0.87 0.8 1 0.82

Oral Fact Finding 1.38 0.67 0.91 0.91 0.625 0.8 1 0.64

Achievement Striving 3.16 1.07 0.99 0.99 0.625 0.8 1 0.64

Openness to Experience 2.96 1.83 0.99 0.99 0.625 1 1 0.64

Self-Sufficiency 3.06 1.41 0.96 0.96 0.625 0.8 1 0.64

Perseverance 4.16 1.16 0.98 0.98 0.87 0.8 1 0.82

Resistance to Premature Judgment 3.74 1.61 0.99 0.99 0.87 0.8 1 0.82

Oral Defense 1.55 1.15 1 1 0.87 0.8 1 0.82

Resilience 2.93 1.06 0.97 0.97 0.87 0.8 1 0.82

Total 3 1.12 0.96 0.96 0.75 0.87 1 0.73

Scale	Social/Interpersonal	Mean	SD	Cronbach Alpha	ICC	CVR	CVI
Social/interpersonal abilities	Agreeableness	2.35	1.6	1	1	0.87	1	1	0.82
	Behavior Flexibility	3.35	0.95	0.95	0.95	0.87	1	1	0.82
	Coordination	3.13	0.76	0.97	0.97	0.87	1	1	0.82
	Dependability	5.39	1.31	0.95	0.95	0.87	1	1	0.82
	Assertiveness	1.71	1.04	0.93	0.93	0.625	1	1	0.64
	Negotiation	1.52	0.93	0.94	0.94	0.625	1	1	0.64
	Persuasion	1.32	0.48	0.92	0.92	0.625	0.8	1	0.64
	Sociability	2.97	1.33	0.98	0.98	0.87	0.8	1	0.82
	Social Conformity	4.03	1.11	0.98	0.98	0.87	0.8	1	0.82
	Social Sensitivity	3.94	1.29	1	1	0.625	0.8	1	0.64
	Self-Control	5.06	0.77	1	1	0.625	0.8	1	0.64
	Social Confidence	3.29	1.27	0.99	0.99	0.625	0.8	1	0.64
	Coaching	2.19	0.79	0.97	0.97	0.87	0.8	1	0.82
	Oral Fact Finding	1.38	0.67	0.91	0.91	0.625	0.8	1	0.64
	Achievement Striving	3.16	1.07	0.99	0.99	0.625	0.8	1	0.64
	Openness to Experience	2.96	1.83	0.99	0.99	0.625	1	1	0.64
	Self-Sufficiency	3.06	1.41	0.96	0.96	0.625	0.8	1	0.64
	Perseverance	4.16	1.16	0.98	0.98	0.87	0.8	1	0.82
	Resistance to Premature Judgment	3.74	1.61	0.99	0.99	0.87	0.8	1	0.82
	Oral Defense	1.55	1.15	1	1	0.87	0.8	1	0.82
	Resilience	2.93	1.06	0.97	0.97	0.87	0.8	1	0.82
Total	3	1.12	0.96	0.96	0.75	0.87	1	0.73

The reliability and validity results of the long version survey showed that the ICC and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient values were 0.98, and CVR was 0.97. Moreover, the values of CVI for simplicity, clarity, and relevance were 0.9, 0.94, and 0.95, respectively. Moreover, the values of CVI for simplicity, clarity, and relevance were 0.9, 0.94, and 0.95, respectively. The cognitive subset (inferential reasoning) had the lowest long-term reliability score (0.73), and the psychomotor (control accuracy), physical (dynamic strength and range of flexibility), and sensory/perceptual (speech clarity) had the highest scores (1). Because these values were higher than the considered values, the validity and reliability of the long version survey were acceptable (Table 2).

Table 2

Validity and reliability results of the long version survey based on the areas of the survey

Scale	Cognitive-Psychomotor-Physical-Sensory/Perceptual	Mean	SD	Cronbach Alpha	ICC	CVR	CVI
							Simplicity	Clarity	Relevance
Cognitive (1– 21)	Oral Comprehension	1.71	1.04	0.93	0.93	1	1	1	1
	Written Comprehension	1.77	1.26	0.99	0.99	1	1	1	1
	Oral Expression	1.71	0.99	0.92	0.92	1	1	1	1
	Written Expression	1.45	0.85	0.95	0.95	1	0.8	1	1
	Fluency of Ideas	1.67	0.75	0.96	0.96	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.8
	Originality	2.16	0.89	0.96	0.96	1	0.8	0.8	1
	Memorization	3.48	1.12	0.98	0.98	1	1	1	1
	Problem Sensitivity	3.74	1.21	0.98	0.98	1	1	1	1
	Mathematical Reasoning	2.96	1.08	0.99	0.99	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.8
	Number Facility	1.48	0.77	0.97	0.97	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.8
	Deductive Reasoning	2.42	0.76	0.95	0.95	0.9	0.6	0.8	0.8
	Inductive Reasoning	2.52	0.68	0.73	0.73	0.9	0.6	0.8	0.8
	Information Ordering	2.77	0.62	0.88	0.88	1	1	1	1
	Category Flexibility	2.58	0.56	0.90	0.90	0.9	0.6	0.8	0.8
	Speed of Closure	3.29	0.82	0.94	0.94	1	1	1	1
	Flexibility of Closure	2.93	0.99	0.99	0.99	0.9	1	0.8	0.8
	Spatial Orientation	3.84	0.82	0.95	0.95	1	0.8	1	1
	Visualization	2.74	0.68	0.98	0.98	1	1	1	1
	Perceptual Speed	3.51	0.57	0.87	0.87	1	1	1	1
	Selective Attention	4.09	0.87	0.94	0.94	1	1	1	1
	Time Sharing	3.68	0.7	0.98	0.98	0.8	0.6	0.8	0.8
Psychomotor (22– 31)	Control Precision	3.22	1.16	1	1	1	1	1	1
	Multilimb Coordination	1∖4.16	1.04	0.97	0.97	1	1	1	1
	Response Orientation	4.03	0.88	0.99	0.99	1	1	0.8	1
	Rate Control	3.87	0.99	0.98	0.98	1	0.8	1	1
	Reaction Time	3.9	0.91	0.94	0.94	1	0.8	1	1
	Arm-Hand Steadiness	3.77	0.99	0.97	0.97	1	0.8	0.8	1
	Manual Dexterity	3.64	1.05	0.97	0.97	1	1	1	1
	Finger Dexterity	2.93	1.15	0.96	0.96	1	1	1	1
	Wrist-Finger Speed	2.71	1.1	0.98	0.98	1	1	1	1
	Speed of Limb Movement	2.9	1.075	0.99	0.99	1	0.8	0.8	1
Physical (32– 40)	Static Strength	1.97	1.14	0.98	0.98	1	1	1	1
	Explosive Strength	1.74	1.12	0.98	0.98	1	1	1	1
	Dynamic Strength	2.55	0.99	1	1	1	1	1	1
	Trunk Strength	3.13	0.89	0.97	0.97	1	1	1	1
	Extent Flexibility	2.71	0.97	1	1	1	1	1	1
	Dynamic Flexibility	2.32	0.98	0.97	0.97	0.9	0.6	0.8	0.8
	Gross Body Coordination	3.26	1.09	0.98	0.98	1	1	1	1
	Gross Body Equilibrium	2.13	0.99	0.98	0.98	1	1	1	1
	Stamina	1.9	113	0.98	0.98	1	1	1	1
Sensory/Perceptual (41– 52)	Near Vision	3.55	0.85	0.93	0.93	1	1	1	1
	Far Vision	4.55	1.21	0.98	0.98	1	1	1	1
	Visual Color Discrimination	4.61	1.14	0.98	0.98	1	1	1	1
	Night Vision	5.39	1.05	0.98	0.98	1	1	1	1
	Peripheral Vision	5	0.77	0.98	0.98	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.8
	Depth Perception	5.64	0.98	0.96	0.96	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.8
	Glare Sensitivity	5	0.73	0.98	0.98	0.9	1	1	0.8
	Hearing Sensitivity	4.09	0.79	0.93	0.93	1	0.8	1	1
	Auditory Attention	4.1	0.75	0.98	0.98	1	0.8	1	1
	Sound Localization	4.29	0.69	0.96	0.96	1	1	1	1
	Speech Recognition	2.55	1.21	0.97	0.97	1	0.8	1	1
	Speech Clarity	2.1	1.17	1	1	1	1	1	1
Total	3.14	0.94	0.98	0.98	0.97	0.9	0.94	0.95

Table 3

The scores of cronbach’s alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient for short version of Fleishman Job Analysis Survey (FJAS)

Item no.	Item content	Cronbach’s alpha	CCI (average measures)	CCI (singles measures)	P-value
1	Compatibility	1	1	1	–
2	Behavioral flexibility	0.95	0.95	0.91	0.00
3	Coordination	0.97	0.97	0.94	0.00
4	Trustworthy	0.95	0.95	0.92	0.00
5	Dare to comment	0.93	0.93	0.88	0.00
6	Negotiation	0.94	0.94	0.89	0.00
7	Convince	0.92	0.92	0.85	0.00
8	Social interactions	0.98	0.98	0.96	0.00
9	Social adjustment	0.98	0.98	0.96	0.00
10	Social sensitivity	1	1	1	–
11	Self-control	1	1	1	–
12	Confidence in public	0.99	0.99	0.98	0.00
13	Coaching	0.97	0.97	0.95	0.00
14	Oral fact-finding	0.91	0.91	0.85	0.00
15	Strive for success	0.99	0.99	0.98	0.00
16	Welcoming new experiences	0.99	0.99	0.99	0.00
17	Independence	0.96	0.96	0.94	0.00
18	Continuity of effort	0.98	0.98	0.97	0.00
19	Resist on wrong and hasty judgments	0.99	0.99	0.99	0.00
20	Oral defense	1	1	1	–
21	Tolerance	0.97	0.97	0.95	0.00
Total scores		0.96	0.96	0.42	0.00

4 Discussion

Job analysis is one of the most critical processes performed within organizations in various sectors. Finding the most suitable person for a particular job position is the primary goal of job analysis. Determining job requirements, examining the appropriate remuneration and salaries of a position, hiring new staff and several other essential processes can be performed based on job analysis. Job analysis can reduce the cost of hiring the wrong people, facilitate various job processes, and, pave the way for the organization’s goals. Therefore, multiple methods have been proposed according to organizations’ requirements and fields of work [10, 11].

This study evaluated the Persian version of the FJAS in Farsi in compliance with the culture and conditions of Iran, based on the evaluation of the drivers. In addition, to verify the validity of the instrument, the opinion of the subject matter experts and professors about the translated questions and the appropriateness of each question with the related issue was considered. In the present study, the internal consistency coefficient measured by Cronbach’s alpha showed high internal consistency. This finding indicates that the questions measure a similar concept and structure, and conceptual dispersion is not observed in them.

The present study was conducted to develop the short and long version of FJAS for the first time in Iran, and it was shown that this survey is a suitable tool. Workplace job analysis requires using a valid, reliable, and culture-based tool appropriate for the target population’s demographic characteristics and social values. In other words, the questionnaires used in studies should be standard for their results to be reliable. The results of the present study showed that for face validity in measuring and evaluating research hypotheses, there is no difficulty, ambiguity, and misconceptions in understanding phrases and words, and the titles appropriately represent the survey items. Moreover, based on the results and existing standards, the content validity and reliability of the survey were acceptable. Therefore, FJAS is a suitable tool for job analysis in the workplace and can be used in jobs such as professional driving.

In this study, all items of the short and long versions of surveys obtained the necessary scores. The content validity and reliability of the short version were, respectively, 0.75 and 0.96, and those of the long version were 0.97 and 0.98, so this survey has acceptable validity and reliability. Moreover, ICC and Cronbach’s alpha values indicated that the repeatability and inter-item correlation are high. In 2014, Kazronian et al. reported that the values of ICC and Cronbach’s alpha of all essential factors in the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) generic job stress questionnaire were above 0.7 and desirable [45]. Additionally, in 2021, Saremi et al. reported that the ICC and Cronbach’s alpha of the Teacher Job Stress Questionnaire were higher than 0.7 and acceptable. These authors suggested that this questionnaire could be a valid and reliable tool for assessing the amount and sources of job stress [36]. However, some studies, including Choobineh et al. [46] and Tabatabai et al. [47], on the psychometric properties of the Persian version of the job stress questionnaire (JSQ) showed that several scales of both versions of this questionnaire did not have an acceptable Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. One of the reasons for this problem can be the lack of equivalent words/terms and items with very different meanings or without a particular semantic load in the target language, i.e., Persian [48]. These problems can lead to a misunderstanding of measurement among Iranian employees (respondents). Considering the above descriptions, it can be concluded that the possibility of practical use of existing tools for job analysis in industry and organizations, followed by implementing purposeful and comprehensive intervention programs, suffers from severe limitations. The failure of these programs leads to serious issues and this instrument has solved all these issues.

Ghanbari et al. [49] in 2014 determined the levels of cognitive requirements of tasks, quantified them, and compared the levels of cognitive requirements in occupational groups in control rooms of a petrochemical industry using FJAS. The results of this study showed that the FJAS method, which can give weight to cognitive requirements and a wide range of factors under investigation, can be considered an alternative to the cognitive task analysis (CTA) method. This indicates the reliability of the FJAS in job analysis, which complies with the results of this study.

Also, justifying the benefits of the FJAS method to people, such as the ability to assess needs, quantify needs, and provide the possibility of numerical comparison of information with the level of their cognitive abilities, can increase their cooperation and participation. Therefore, it can be said that this survey can be used in the driving profession and the results obtained from it can be used for the optimal design of systems, especially at the level of cognitive interaction, as well as for the employment of people according to the needs and the development of workforce training programs.

It was also determined that the FJAS is suitable for quantifying the cognitive needs of tasks and provides the possibility of comparison between occupational groups in terms of the cognitive load of tasks. Considering the number of extracted cognitive needs and their high level, improving people’s cognitive abilities, optimizing work environment conditions, and revising the design of work processes and existing hardware and software systems are recommended.

The short version of the present survey consists of 21 questions, and the long version consists of 52 questions. Existing job analyses have been used to evaluate specific dimensions of the job or some elements of the job system, and none fully cover all the factors of job analysis.

Questionnaires available in Western Europe, developed countries, and the United States have been designed and developed in compliance with the particular problems of the employees of these countries. However, due to the specific social and cultural characteristics of developing countries and Eastern societies, as well as the unique behavioral features of the employees of these countries, especially Iran, the existing questionnaires may not be able to cover all their specific problems [50, 51]. Nevertheless, the results are acceptable, considering the validity and reliability of the Persian version of FJAS.

Overall, the findings of this study indicated that FJAS could be applied to occupations with relatively appropriate subscales for evaluation. However, considering different industries and their goals and strategies, it is suggested that a more comprehensive study be conducted on other sectors with more workers to design a more extensive questionnaire with more accurate subscales. Furthermore, to adequately address the specific problems of each industry, questionnaires with appropriate subscales should be developed to design and implement targeted intervention programs to reduce these problems. However, this study is the first to consider the FJAS in Iran, we hope that the results can provide a basis for future studies in this domain.

4.1 Limitations

The present study has some limitations. First, because completing the booklet needs noticeable time, there were difficulties to satisfy people to take part in the research, and this issue affects the study sample size. Second, following up on the process was not easy. Third, based on personal differences, giving an adequate explanation for participants was challenging in some cases.

A high value of alpha (>0.90) may suggest redundancies and show that the test length should be shortened [52], but alpha is not a measure of internal consistency nor a measure of the degree of uni-dimensionality [53]. Alpha has been shown to correlate with many other statistics and much as these results are interesting, they are also confusing in the sense that without additional information, both very low and very high alpha values can go either with Uni-dimensionality or multi-dimensionality of the data. But given that one needs the additional information to know what alpha stands for, alpha itself cannot be interpreted as a measure of internal consistency [34]. Nevertheless, alpha has frequently been reported in an uncritical way and without adequate understanding and interpretation [52].

5 Conclusion

The results of this study showed that the Persian version of the FJAS has the necessary validity and reliability for job analysis, so it can be used for driving profession or research purposes. Moreover, this survey is an effective tool for obtaining accurate and complete knowledge of job tasks and requirements.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude and appreciation to the professors and specialists in the field of occupational health and ergonomics, as well as the participating drivers of passenger vehicles.

Ethics statement

This study was approved by Tabriz University of Medical Sciences and all ethical considerations set by the National Ethics Committee of the Ministry of Health were considered.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

The authors report no funding.

References

Breaugh

. The contribution of job analysis to recruitment. The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of recruitment, selection and employee retention. 2017;16:12–28.

Voskuijl

. Job analysis: Current and Future Perspectives. 2017:25–46.

López-García

, García-Herrero

, Gutiérrez

, Mariscal

. Psychosocial and ergonomic conditions at work: influence on the probability of a workplace accident. BRI 2019.

King

. Personality (and psychopathology) assessment in the selection of pilots. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology. 2014;24(1):61–73.

Ardeshir

. Safety Risk Management effective on Occupational Health in High-rise Building construction projects with Fuzzy approach. Iran Occupational Health. 2014;11(3):82–95.

Singh

. Job analysis for a changing workplace. Human Resource Management Review. 2008;18(2):87–99.

Zelesniack

, Oubaid

, Harendza

. Defining competence profiles of different medical specialties with the requirement-tracking questionnaire– a pilot study to provide a framework for medial students’ choice of postgraduate training. BMC Medical Education. 2021;21(1):1–7.

Heinen

, Frenz

, Djaloeis

, Schlick

, editors . Curriculum Development, Design and Qualification Concepts in Vocational and Further Education for Energy Consulting Services. Edulearn11 Proceedings; 2011: IATED.

Wilson

. A history of job analysis. Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology; Psychology Press; 2014. p. 249–72.

10.

Strah

, Rupp

, Morris

, Psychology

. Job analysis and job classification for addressing pay inequality in organizations: Adjusting our methods within a shifting legal landscape. 2022;15(1):1–45.

11.

Nasution

, Yeni

, Yondra

, Putri

. The Influence of Organizational Structure and Job Analysis on Work Motivation and Its impact on the Performance of the Office of Cooperatives for Small and Medium Enterprises, Industry and Trade (KOPERINDAG) Mentawai Islands Regency, JAJoH, Research SS. 2021;5(1):444–53.

12.

Prien

, Goodstein

, Gamble

Jr . A practical guide to job analysis: John Wiley & Sons; 2009.

13.

Tabanelli

, Depolo

, Cooke

, Sarchielli

, Bonfiglioli

, Mattioli

, et al. Available instruments for measurement of psychosocial factors in the work environment. 2008;82(1):1–12.

14.

Wilson

, Bennett Jr W , Gibson

, Alliger

. The handbook of work analysis: Methods, systems, applications and science of work measurement in organizations: Routledge; 2013.

15.

Morgeson

, Brannick

, Levine

. Job and work analysis: Methods, research, and applications for human resource management. Sage Publications; 2019.

16.

Kovacs

, Găman

, Pupăzan

, Călămar

, Ilie

. Psychological analysis of work of intervention and rescue activities in toxic/flammable/explosive environments. JIMSGS. 2016;3:963–9.

17.

Caughron

, Mumford

. The Fleishman Job Analysis Survey: Development, Validation, and Applications 232 233. The Handbook of Work Analysis: Routledge; 2013. p. 263–78.

18.

Wilson

, Cunningham

. Important contributors to job analysis in the 20th and early 21st centuries. The Handbook of Work Analysis; Routledge; 2013. p. 205–17.

19.

Fleishman

, Reilly

. Fleishman job analysis survey (F-JAS): Management Research Institute; 1995.

20.

Fleishman

, Reilly

. Administrator’s guide: F-JAS: Fleishman job analysis survey. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1992.

21.

Ghamari

, Mohammadbeigi

, Mohammadsalehi

, Hashiani

. Internet addiction and modeling its risk factors in medical students, Iran. Jijopm. 2011;33(2):158–62.

22.

Mohammadbeigi

, Mohammadsalehi

. Prevalence of internet addiction and related risk factors in students. JJoGUoMS. 2011;20(78):41–8.

23.

Abolfazl

, Hamidreza

, Narges

, Maryam

. Gestational diabetes and its association with unpleasant outcomes of pregnancy. JPJMS. 2008;24(4):566–70.

24.

Ahmadi

, Ershad

, Givzadeh

, Mohammad-Beigi

. General physicians’ knowledge about nutrition in Shiraz, Iran. JPjobsP. 2009;12(13):981–5.

25.

Bayati

, Beigi

, Salehi

. Depression prevalence and related factors in Iranian students. JPJBS. 2009;12(20):1371–5.

26.

Choubineh

, Soleymani

, Mohammad

. Musculoskeletal symptoms among workers of metal structure manufacturing industry in Shiraz. 2005. 2009.

27.

Beygi

, Salehi

, Bayati

AJK

. Prevalence of unintended pregnancy and its related factors in Arak 2007. 2009; 10(3).

28.

Hassanzadeh

, Mohammadbeigi

, Eshrati

, Rezaianzadeh

, Rajaeefard

. Determinants of inequity in health care services utilization in Markazi Province of Iran. JIRCMJ. 2013;15(5):363.

29.

Mohammad

, Tabatabaei

, Mohammad

, Yazdani

. Factors influencing cesarean delivery method in Shiraz hospitals. 2009.

30.

Tabatabaee

, Mohammad-Beigi

, Yazdani

, Zeighami

, Mohammad-Salehi

. medknow.com. JIJDDC. 2007;27(1):11.

31.

Streiner

. Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment. 2003;80(1):99–103.

32.

Helms

, Henze

, Sass

, Mifsud

. Treating Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients as data in counseling research. 2006;34(5):630–60.

33.

Larrabure-Torrealva

, Martinez

, Luque-Fernandez

, Sanchez

, Mascaro

, Ingar

, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of gestational diabetes mellitus: findings from a universal screening feasibility program in Lima, Peru. 2018;18(1):1–9.

34.

Sijtsma

. On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. JP. 2009;74(1):107–20.

35.

George

. SPSS for windows step by step: A simple study guide and reference, 17.0 update, 10/e: Pearson Education India; 2011.

36.

Saremi

, Anvar

ZSN

, Khodakarim

, Tabatabaei

, Ramezankhan

. Cross Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Persian Version of Teachers Stress Inventory. JJoHitF. 2021;9(2).

37.

Mohammadbeigi

, Mohammadsalehi

, Aligol

. Validity and reliability of various tools and methods for measuring them in applied health research. JSJoRUoMS. 2015;13(12):1153–70.

38.

Heravi-Karimooi

, Anoosheh

, Foroughan

, Sheykhi

, Hajizadeh

. Designing and determining psychometric properties of the Domestic Elder Abuse Questionnaire. JIjoa. 2010;5(1):0.

39.

Williams

, Onsman

, Brown

. Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. JAjo. 2010;8(3).

40.

Lawshe

. A qualitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology. 1975;28(4):563–75.

41.

Newman

, Lim

, Pineda

. Content validity using a mixed methods approach: Its application and development through the use of a table of specifications methodology. JJoMMR. 2013;7(3):243–60.

42.

Toulis

, Goulis

, Kolibianakis

, Venetis

, Tarlatzis

, Papadimas

, et al. Risk of gestational diabetes mellitus in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. JF. 2009;92(2):667–77.

43.

Rangi

, Allahyari

, Khosravi

, Zaeri

, Saremi

. Development of an Occupational Cognitive Failure Questionnaire (OCFQ): evaluation validity and reliability. JIOH. 2012;9(1).

44.

Hajizadeh

, Asghari

. Methods and statistical analysis by looking at life sciences and health research methods (with guide SPSS). JTJ-DP. 2018.

45.

Kazronian

, Zakerian

, Saraji

, Hosseini

. Work Sa. Reliability and validity study of the NIOSH Generic Job Stress Questionnaire (GJSQ) among firefighters in Tehran city. JH. 2013;3(3):25–34.

46.

Choobineh

, Ghaem

, Ahmedinejad

. Validity and reliability of the Persian [Farsi] version of the Job Content Questionnaire: a study among hospital nurses. JE-EMHJ. 2011;17:335–41.

47.

, Ghaffari

, Pournik

, Ghalichi

, AR

, Motevalian

, et al. Reliability and validity of Persian version of job content questionnaire in health care workers in Iran. JTijoo. 2013;4(2):96–101.

48.

Epstein

, Santo

, Guillemin

. A review of guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires could not bring out a consensus. JJoce. 2015;68(4):435–41.

49.

Ghanbari

, Rasoulzadeh

, Allahyari

. Cognitive work analysis via cta and quantifying with F-JAS in control rooms of a petrochemical industry. JIOH. 2014;11(4):20–30.

50.

Gharibi

, Mokarami

, Taban

, Aval

, Samimi

, Salesi

, et al. Effects of work-related stress on work ability index among Iranian workers. JS. 2016;7(1):43–8.

51.

Mokarami

, Mortazavi

, Asgari

, Choobineh

, Stallones

. Multiple dimensions of work-related risk factors and their relationship to work ability among industrial workers in Iran. JIjoos, Ergonomics. 2017;23(3):374–9.

52.

Tavakol

, Dennick

. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education. 2011;2:53.

53.

Ten Berge

, Sočan

. The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of Uni-dimensionality. Psychometrika. 2004;69(4):613–25.

Psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Fleishman Job Analysis Survey (FJAS)

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

OBJECTIVE:

METHODS:

RESULTS:

CONCLUSION:

Keywords

1 Introduction

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Participants

2.2 Fleishman Job Analysis Survey (FJAS)

2.3 Data analysis

3 Results

4.1 Limitations

5 Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Ethics statement

Conflict of interest

Funding

References