Vertical differentiation of work tasks: conceptual and measurement issues.

Autor/in	Tåhlin, Michael
Titel	Vertical differentiation of work tasks: conceptual and measurement issues.
Quelle	In: Empirical research in vocational education and training, 3 (2011) 1, S. 55-70Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Link als defekt meldenVerfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	online; gedruckt; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1877-6337; 1877-6345
URN	urn:nbn:de:0111-opus-82678
Schlagwörter	Empirische Forschung; Kognitive Leistung; Indikator; Messung; Arbeitsleistung; Anforderungsprofil; Berufsanforderung; Entgelt; Komplexität; Modell; Europa; Schweden
Abstract	This paper contains an overview of conceptual and measurement issues related to the vertical differentiation of work tasks. The main conclusions - based on a synthetic literature review and measurement examples from the Swedish Level of Living Survey (LNU) and the European Social Survey (ESS) - are as follows. First, job complexity is the main dimension of the vertical variation in work content. A large number of empirical studies in several disciplines converge on this conclusion. Productivity appears to be the driving mechanism of the tight link between job complexity and rewards. Second, time-based measures of job complexity (skill requirements) work well. By now there are well-established indicators of educational requirements and initial on-the-job learning, with good measurement properties. However, more work is needed on indicators of continuing on-the-job learning (both formal and informal). Finally, horizontal - as opposed to vertical - variation in work content is well captured by the distinction between working with people, data and things (PDT). Broad task indicators of PDT are now included in the LNU and ESS surveys. Relations between vertical (job complexity) and horizontal (task variation within complexity levels) dimensions of work content are important issues to be examined in future research based on these and other data. (DIPF/Orig.).
Erfasst von	DIPF \| Leibniz-Institut für Bildungsforschung und Bildungsinformation, Frankfurt am Main
Update	2014/1