The MVQS1 Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Job-based
Personality Type Indicator and MTSP2 Jobs-Based Vocational Interest
Personality Types Crosswalk to Jung People-Based Personality Types
By
Billy J. McCroskey, Ph.D., Steven J. Hahn, M.S.,
Scott E. Streater, D.V.S., Larry L. Sinsabaugh, Ph.D.,
Lyndette L. Mayer, Ph.D., Eugene E. Van de Bittner, Ph.D.,
Janet K. Lowe, M.S. and Kenneth L. Dennis, Ph.D.
Abstract
According to Personality Theorist Carl Jung3, human motivation to act or behave in predictable ways may
be explained in terms of creative energy and classified into a variety of Jung People-based Personality
Types based on different combinations of four dimensions of opposing personality trait continuums:
 Extravert vs. Introvert,



Sensing vs. iNtuiting,
Thinking vs. Feeling, and
Judgment vs. Perception.
Combining opposing personality dimensions by selecting one end of each of the four continuums (E or I,
and S or N, and T or F and J or P) yields 16 four-letter MVQS Vocational Interest and Personality
Reinforcer (VIPR) Job-based Personality Types4. Each of these have a corresponding Jung People-based
Personality Types (e.g., ESTJ, ISTJ, ENTJ, INTJ, . . . ENFP, INFP). The 16 VIPR Job-based
Personality Types can be helpful in terms of describing and explaining vocational aspects of complex
human behavior. They can also be helpful in matching individuals with Specific Job Types, via the
MVQS2001 VIPR Job-based Personality Type Crosswalk, which optimally reinforce (correspond with)
their Vocational Interests, Occupational Values, Needs, and General Jung People-based Personality
Type.
© 2001 by Billy J. McCroskey, Ph.D.
All Rights Reserved.
Filename: C:\My Documents\VIPRART.doc
1 McCroskey, B. J. (2001). The McCroskey Vocational Quotient System (MVQS2001) Job-Person Matching
Program. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc.
2 McCroskey, B. J. (2001). The McCroskey Transferable Skills Program (MTSP). In: The McCroskey
Vocational Quotient System 2001 (MVQS2001) Job-Person Matching Program. Brooklyn Park, MN:
Vocationology, Inc.
3 Jung, Carl Gustav - Swiss-born Personality Theorist (1875-1961).
4 VIPR Job Types are 16 General Job-based Personality Types. Each Job-based Personality Type
corresponds with one of the 16 General Jung People-based Personality Types. In 2001, the US world of
work as we know it has 12,775 Specific Job Types. Each Specific Job Type fits best within one General
VIPR Job-based Personality Type and it's correspondent General Jung People-based Personality Type.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was:
1) To reasonably order the 12,775 Specific Job Types described in the McDOT2001 into 16 General
Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcement (VIPR) Job-based Personality Types. These
General Job-based Personality Types would include seemingly Independent, yet Dependent,
Specific Job Types, within and across, the 16 General VIPR Job-based Personality Types, when
ordered by Percent of Transferable Skills Valence5 across all 12,775 Specific Job Types.

Note: Retaining Specific Job Types with the highest TS Valence in each single best General VIPR Jobbased Personality Type, and eliminating all other duplicate, or lower TS Valence Specific Job Types,
within and across, the 16 General VIPR Job-based Personality Types, brings more independent order to
the world of work. By forging a link between General Jung People-based Personality Types and their
single-best most correspondent General VIPR Job-based Personality Types, we can better match people
with jobs based on relevant Personality attributes. The 16 corresponding Job-Person Personality-based
Job-Person Matching Types were developed so Career Guidance and Counseling Professionals could
provide Personality-based career guidance and counseling to their clientele. How so? By considering
which General Jung People-based Personality Type best fits which General VIPR Job-based
Personality Type as defined by the set of Specific Job Types nested within each VIPR Job-based
Personality Type.
2) To develop an MVQS Vocational Interests & Personality (VIPR) Job-based Personality Type
Indicator (both a Paper and Pencil, and a Machine version) which classifies all 12,775 Specific
McDOT2001 Job Types into 16 General VIPR Job-based Personality Types, corresponding with the
16 General Jung People-based Personality Character Types6 identified in the literature.
5 Percent of Transferable Skills Valence is defined as the level of Transferable Skills (TS) between two or
more Specific Job Types. This is on an MVQS Percent Scale ranging from 0 to 97%. The higher the TS
Valence between two or more Specific Job Types, the greater the probability of skills transferability
between those Job Types. Valence between two or more seemingly independent Job Types, in any General
VIPR Job-based Personality Type, is defined in terms of similarities of occupational interests, values,
needs, and other personality attributes common to People Personality Types drawn to Specific Job Types in
that same General VIPR Job-based Personality Type. Valence between two or more People in the same
General Jung People-based Personality Type is correspondingly defined in terms of similarities of
occupational interests, values, needs, and other personality attributes common across individuals in that
same General Jung People-based Personality Type.
6 Source Web Site: http://www.doi.gov/octc/typescar.html
Review of Literature
The Origins of Job-Person Matching
In the early 1930s, the United States Department of Labor (US DOL) began widespread studies of the
requirements of jobs in America. These studies were initially prompted by the need to understand job
requirements to better match disabled veterans with jobs. The goal was to reduce or eliminate the impact of
vocationally handicapping conditions (McCroskey, 1979; McCroskey & Lowe, 1986, 1987; McCroskey,
Streater, Timming, Wattenbarger & Lowe, 1989, 1991).
In 1933, the United States War Manpower Commission received congressionally-authorized funding for job
analysis research, which later produced the first edition of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT, US
DOL, 1939). That book was an attempt to objectively describe all jobs in the United States. Eventually, the
US DOT served as a model copied by many countries around the world [(McCroskey & Lowe, 1986, 1987);
Shartle (1964)]. Subsequent editions of the DOT, Volumes II, III and IV, were researched using objective,
behaviorally-anchored Job Analysis Scales and Techniques, described, quantified and published in 1949,
1965, and 1977, respectively.
In 1991, instead of researching and updating to a 5th edition DOT, the 1977 4th edition DOT was simply
revised and became known as the 1991 revised 4th edition DOT.
In 1998, the O*NET 98 Viewer (Version 1.0) was put out, not as an updated DOT, but as a replacement for
the DOT. It contained far too much general information and not nearly enough specific to be of much use to
Vocational Experts, Career Guidance Counselors, Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors or Consultants,
Vocational Evaluators, Psychologists, Psychometrists, or similar professionals.
In 2000, since the USDOL had abandoned updating US DOT to a 5th edition, the McCroskey Dictionary of
Occupational Titles (McDOT) was updated to a 5th Edition DOT by Vocationology, Inc., a private sector
firm in Brooklyn Park, MN. The methods used included a great deal of data mining of the O*NET 98 DOT
replacement data along with the data fusion necessary to rebuild the 24 most vocationally significant
worker trait profiles for the 12,775 Specific Job Types in McDOT2001.
The Jung Connection to VIPR Type Indicators
The VIPR code was determined from Jung, C.G. (1971). Myers-Briggs resources from Consulting
Psychologist Press (CPP) were noted, but not used. We went back to the original source (Jung, 1971). The
VIPR types are numbered in order of frequency in the McDOT. Number 1 is the most common type and
number 16 is the least common type. While a person may have a personality type (or Conceptual Type as
we would describe it), the desired VIPR type is specific to employment. VIPR does not say what type you
are. It says what type of job you prefer to have. For many people, personality type is the same as the
employment preference type. This cannot be assumed, however, for all workers. Since the VIPR test asks
the person to rate jobs on the basis of desirability, it focuses on work preference rather than general
personality. Therefore, in its development, focus and prediction, VIPR is not related to Myers-Briggs. Carl
Jung remains the theoretical base for the 16 VIPR Type Indicators.
Evaluative Data Profiling
The 24 Most Vocationally Significant Worker Traits for Manual and
Computerized Job-Person Matching
Since the introduction of the formal Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment in 1964, the US DOL has
collected a myriad of worker trait / job requirement element-level data, and utilized that data to develop
worker trait / job requirement traits-level data.
McCroskey (1982,1983, 1985, 1987, 1989 & 1990) and McCroskey & Lowe (1986, 1987) described the 24,
most vocationally significant, traits-level worker traits, which should be measured, or rated, and used for
evaluative data profiling in McCroskey Vocational Analysis. This 24 worker traits-level characteristics
evaluative data profile should be developed using the McPLOT TestPlot Program and then transferred to the
McCroskey Transferable Skills Program (MTSP; McCroskey, 2000) for the best, most reliable and most
well validated Job-Person Matching, Employability Determination, and Earning Capacity Prediction
Estimates. All of these worker traits have been operationally defined on behaviorally anchored job analysis
scales in the Handbook for Analyzing Jobs-Revised (USDOL 1972, 1976, 1991). These 24, most
vocationally significant, worker trait characteristics are listed below:
The 24 Most Vocationally Significant Worker Traits For
MVQS2001 Job-Person Matching
General Educational Development Worker Traits
R - Reasoning
M - Math
L - Language
Aptitude Worker Traits
S - Spatial Perception
P - Form Perception
Q - Clerical Perception
K - Motor Coordination
F - Finger Dexterity
M - Manual Dexterity
E - Eye-Hand-Foot Coordination
C - Color Discrimination
Physical Capacity Worker Traits
PD1 - Lifting/Carrying/Pushing/Pulling/Sitting/Standing/Walking
PD2 - Climbing/Balancing
PD3 - Stooping/Bending/Crouching/Squatting/Kneeling/Crawling
PD4 - Reaching/Handling/Fingering/Feeling
PD5 - Talking/Hearing
PD6 - Seeing
Environmental Tolerance Worker Traits
EC1 - Work Location (Indoors/Both/Outdoors)
EC2 - Extreme Cold
EC3 - Extreme Heat
EC4 - Dampness/Humidity
EC5 - Noise/Vibrations
EC6 - Hazards (Mechanical/Electrical/Chemical/Heights)
EC7 - Fumes/Dusts/Mists/Gases/Odors
Updating the Year 2000 Vocational Quotient (VQ1)
Relationship between the Old VQ versus the Year 2000 VQ1
The most comprehensive approach to bring order to the world of work and work adjustment, in terms of
understanding Overall Job Difficulty and Maximum Vocational Potential, is the McCroskey Vocational
Quotient (VQ). The Vocational Quotient was developed from the U.S. Department of Labor (US DOL) Job
Analysis behavioral anchor ratings. There were 51 worker traits listed in the 1972 Handbook for Analyzing
Jobs-Revised. In 1979, the 12,099 Job Titles described in the 1977 Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT;
USDOL, 1977) were arranged by VQ, based on those 51 worker traits (McCroskey & Perkins, 1981), and
published in the original four volumes of the Encyclopedia of Job Requirements (McCroskey, 1979a, 1979b,
1979c, 1979d).
The 51 worker trait raw scores for each nine-digit DOT job type were added together to produce a total or
sum of scores. Some of these raw scores (N=20) had several possible scale values. For example, Reasoning
(R), Math (M), and Language (L) had scores that ranged from one to six, and Spatial (S), Form Perception
(P) and other aptitudes had scores ranging from one to five. Other worker traits (N=31) such as Seeing
(Physical Demand #6) had only two possible values at the worker-trait level: a significant "1" or not
significant "0" job requirement. The original Vocational Quotient (VQ) distribution had a mean of 57.1999
and a standard deviation of 14.4558 points.
The raw scores were divided into two groups based on whether they had three or more possible values
(scalar; N=20), or two possible values (dichotomous; N=31). After recoding all worker trait profile values to
place them on ascending scales, a multiple regression analysis was completed on the scalar variables to
predict the Total Raw Score VQ (TRS-VQ). A second multiple regression was then completed using only
the dichotomous variables to predict the TRS-VQ. The relevant acquired regression weights for each worker
trait profile were multiplied by their corresponding worker trait profile values and summed to produce the
Scalar Variables Vocational Quotient (SVVQ). The relevant acquired regression weights for each worker
trait profile were also multiplied by their corresponding worker trait profile values and summed to produce
Dichotomous Variables Vocational Quotient (DVVQ) estimates of overall job difficulty, as measured by the
TRS-VQ criterion, for each job described in the 1977, 4th ed. DOT.
The final SVVQ (Rxy=0.99+ with TRS-VQ) distribution had a mean of 57.1998 and a standard deviation of
14.3741 points. The final DVVQ (Rxy=0.92+ with TRS-VQ) distribution had a mean of 57.2299 and a
standard deviation of 13.3208 points. When the final sets of three Vocational Quotients (VQs) were printed
to five decimal points, each unique worker trait / job requirements profile pattern was found to be associated
with a unique and empirically precise set of VQs (McCroskey & Perkins, 1981).
Since 1979, all worker trait profiles and their VQs published in the original four volume edition of the
Encyclopedia of Job Requirements (McCroskey, 1979a, 1979b, 1979c, 1979d) have been updated several
times. They are now electronically incorporated in the McCroskey Dictionary of Occupational Titles
(McDOT) and related McPLOT and MTSP programs. The final product of the first regression analysis (the
SVVQ) was ultimately selected as the more robust and more precise estimate of the overall TRS-VQ. The
SVVQ was therefore selected as the final, single-best, most representative, Vocational Quotient (VQ)
estimate of overall job difficulty for each job.
In 1992, the VQ distribution was updated, recalculated, and transformed to produce a distribution with a
mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 to provide consistency with the WAIS IQ distribution. People
have IQs, Jobs have VQs. Put another way, VQ can be thought of as an IQ for work. When the final
transformed VQ was printed to five decimal points, each unique job requirement pattern was found to be
associated with a unique and empirically precise VQ.
In 1995, 2,408 internal DOT inconsistencies identified through research were corrected. This effected 1,913
of the 12,741 worker trait profiles for jobs described in the 1991 DOT. The VQ was re-calculated to adjust
for these profile changes. Again, as expected, when the final VQ was printed to five decimal points, each
unique job requirement pattern was again found to be associated with a unique and empirically precise VQ.
In 2000, the 12,775 worker trait profiles for jobs described in the McDOT2000 were recalculated based on
data fusion of 75 selected O*NET 98 worker trait elements with the 24, most vocationally significant,
McDOT 8.0R worker traits to reconstitute the McDOT 2000 5th edition DOT - Extended Dataset Edition.
Both SVP and VQ aggregate variables were then re-calculated to adjust for the new, updated, Year 2000
worker trait level profile changes. In these re-calculations, only the 24, most vocationally significant
(regardless of their scalar or dichotomous nature), worker trait values were used to determine the final SVP1
and VQ1 for each job. Again, as expected, when the final VQ1 was printed to five decimal places, each
unique job requirement profile pattern was again found to be associated with a unique and empirically
precise Vocational Quotient VQ1.
VQ (or VQ1), represents the Overall Job Difficulty level of Adaptive or Accommodative Behavior (in terms
of Satisfactoriness and Satisfaction) required for people to accomplish meaningful Work Adjustment and
develop Tenure for each of the 12,775 jobs described in the McCroskey Dictionary of Occupational Titles
(McDOT2001; McCroskey, 2001).
Many studies have reviewed the use of the Vocational Quotient based on both the DOT and the
O*NET. These studies included McCroskey & Lowe (1986, 1987), McCroskey (1991, 1992),
McCroskey & Hahn (1995, 1997, 1998), (McCroskey, Hahn, Dennis & Streater (1995), McCroskey,
Bohlke & Streater (1995), Hahn (1997), Dennis & Dennis (1998), McCroskey, Dennis &
Dennis(1998), Hahn & Wells-Moran (1998), Dennis & Tichauer, (1998), Dennis & McCroskey
(1999), McCroskey & Dennis (1999), Mayer (1998), and Dennis & McCroskey, (2000).
The Vocational Quotient (VQ) has been shown repeatedly to be a valid predictor of average starting
and overall wages in California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,
Nebraska, North Carolina Virginia, Wisconsin, Washington, and other states. The Vocational
Quotient (VQ) has been shown to be reliable and valid within and across independent cross-
validation replication studies, longitudinal time frames (15+ years), and numerous geographic
locations.
VQ has been repeatedly studied as a predictor of starting wages offered on Job Service Work Order
Openings, overall average wages across all workers in the US, and average starting wages achieved by
randomly selected rehabilitation clients at time of Status 26 closure in Indiana. VQ has been found to be
highly predictive of average starting wages [(Rxy=0.91; SEE=$0.50/hr; McCroskey & Hahn (1998)],
overall average wages across all workers in the United States [(Rxy=0.99+; SEE=$0.01/hr; McCroskey &
Hahn (1998)], and average post-rehabilitation services starting wages of clients at time of Status 26 closure
in Indiana [Mayer (1998, Rxy=0.68; SEE=$1.25/hr) and Dennis & McCroskey (2000, independent
replication study Rxy=0.83; R2=0.70; SEE=$1.12/hr)].
Dennis & McCroskey (2000) independently replicated, expanded and updated Mayer’s (1998)
Indiana labor market wage research, which was an update of her original study7 of 132 randomly
selected people that received State of Indiana Division of Disability, Aging, and Rehabilitation
services and were placed in jobs in 1993 (Mayer, 1995). All clients in these studies met the criteria
of being successfully rehabilitated. Mayer's 1998 MTSP 7.11R follow-up of her original study was
replicated and expanded using MTSP 8.0R Program Earning Capacity Estimates.
Mayer (1998) found a gain of about $1.00 above the predicted average return-to-work wage for
Indiana Rehabilitation clients based on MTSP 7.11R Program Earning Capacity Estimates. That
gain was due in part to a small group of people with exceptionally high incomes. When those
Outliers were removed in the Dennis & McCroskey (2000) follow-up study (Rxy=0.83; R2=0.70;
SEE=$1.12 per hour), average return-to-work wage for Indiana Rehabilitation clients was about
$1.00 below what had been predicted.
McCroskey & Dennis (2000), in an expansion of Mayer's 1998 study, included an analysis of
Temperaments. The expanded study of Indiana Job Services openings and starting wages data from
March, 1995 through February, 1996 compared income predictions when Temperaments or
Personality variables were added to the MTSP VQ-Wage prediction formula. In the expanded study,
Temperaments or Personality variables did not improve the VQ-Wage prediction sufficiently to
overcome the increased variance inherent in these measures.
Building on previous research which assessed the validity of Vocational Quotient (VQ1) as a predictor of
criterion referenced Job Service work order wages to be very positive, McCroskey, Hahn & Dennis (2000)
established a new, expanded criterion-reference point distribution for MVQS2001 earning capacity
estimation: six-point earning capacity prediction estimates. In their study8, McCroskey, Hahn & Dennis
(2000) evaluated the ability of the VQ1 to predict income reported for Occupational Employment Statistics
(OES) job groups. Linear regression was used to predict reported income at the Mean, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th
and 90th percentile of the OES-Wage distributions. When VQ1 was used to predict to the middle of these six
criterion-referenced distributions, it was found to be a very accurate predictor of each of these OES-Wage
distributions reported by the US Department of Labor. Predictive Validity (Rxy) Coefficients were found to
be 0.970, 0.973, 0.975, 0.974, 0.972 and 0.966, respectively. Standard Errors of Estimate (SEE) were
found to be $1.19, $0.45, $0.69, $1.08, $1.65 and $2.66 per hour, respectively.
7 The authors wish to thank Dr. Lindette Mayer for providing raw data and permission to replicate her 1998
study.
8 McCroskey, B. J., Hahn, S. J. & Dennis. (2000). MTSP VQ1-OES Aggregate & VQ1-McDOT Specific
Wage Estimation. The Journal of Forensic Vocationology, Vol. 6(1), pp. 107-134.
McCroskey, Hahn & Dennis (2000) recommended the expanded 6-point VQ1-OES Wage Algorithm, based
on specific McDOT-VQ19 OES Wage Prediction, be used in the MVQS2001 Program to expand the range
of predicted earning capacity estimates, increase overall reliability of predicted earning capacity
estimates and reduce aggregate SEEs associated with prediction estimates. Their recommendations
were peer-reviewed, found to be empirically sound, and subsequently implemented in the MVQS2001
Program (McCroskey, 2001).
9 McCroskey Dictionary of Occupational Titles (McDOT; McCroskey, 2001) 5th Edition DOT: VQ-VQ1
Replacement Data.
Informal vs. Formal Job-Person Matching Theory
In his book entitled Choosing a Vocation, Frank Parsons10 (1909), known by many as the father of
vocational guidance, postulated three primary requirements for effective vocational guidance:
1. A knowledge of the requirements and conditions for success in different lines of work, as well as
related advantages and disadvantages, compensation, opportunities and prospects (knowledge of
the world of work);
2. A clear understanding of the aptitudes, interests, ambitions, resources and limitations of the
individual (self-knowledge and insight); and,
3. Systematic techniques for integrating these two sources of information in the vocational
decision-making process (bringing the first two conditions together).
Parsons’ informal, yet profound, three-part theory for vocational guidance continues to guide the efforts of
many theoreticians, researchers and clinical practitioners working to develop and refine the methodologies,
techniques and tools necessary to provide better vocational counseling.
The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawis, England and Lofquist, 1964) provided formal (testable)
foundational underpinning for all worker trait factor job person matching systems which later emerged.
Many of these had their beginning in the late 1970s with the development of the Vocational Diagnosis and
Assessment of Residual Employability [VDARE; (McCroskey, Wattenbarger, Field & Sink, 1977)], and
continuing through the 1980s and 90s. These worker-trait-factor job-person matching TSA systems were all
developed and computerized based on data describing job requirements in terms of the objectively defined
behaviorally- anchored rating scales found in the Handbook for Analyzing Jobs-Revised (HAJ-R; USDOL,
1972; Reprinted, 1976; Re-revised 1991).
From 1900 to 1976, more than 20,000 mental and physical tests, covering a multitude of worker traits, had
been developed and utilized in an effort to better understand individual differences in terms of basic human
capacities and tolerances (Buros, eds. 1-8, 1938-1978). While many of these tests have been used as lone
predictors of employability, research clearly supports the administration of a battery of vocationally relevant
tests used in combination for better prediction of the multifaceted criteria known as individual employability
(Anastasi, 1958, Anastasi, 1976, Bolton, 1976).
Flexible test batteries designed to allow for the systematic measurement of vocationally significant worker
traits, remain a priority. Continuing efforts should focus on developing, refining and updating Ability and
Work Context instruments and measures of Worker Traits/Job Requirements primarily in these four,
vocationally-significant Worker Trait Factor areas:
1) General Educational Development, (3 worker traits)
2) Vocational Aptitudes, (8 worker traits)
10 Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a Vocation. (1st ed.); Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
3) Physical Capacities (6 worker traits, and
4) Environmental Tolerances (7 worker traits).
It is important that such measures be standardized with well-defined behavioral anchors, which are reliable,
valid and interpreted in terms of relevant job requirements relative to general adult worker norms. Welldeveloped tests and measures with reasonable approximations of general adult worker norms can
subsequently be combined into a test battery with their results combined and effectively utilized to
accomplish Parsons’ (1909) third recommendation for matching people with jobs (McCroskey, Streater,
Timming, Wattenbarger & Lowe, 1989; 1991).
The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment
While informal Job-Person Matching Theory dates back to Parsons (1909), the Minnesota Theory of Work
Adjustment (Dawis, England and Lofquist, 1964) provided the first formal foundational underpinning for all
worker-trait-factor job person matching systems. These later emerged, beginning in the late 1970s with the
development of the Vocational Diagnosis and Assessment of Residual Employability [VDARE;
(McCroskey, Wattenbarger, Field & Sink, 1977)], and continuing through the 1980s and 90s. These workertrait-factor job-person matching TSA systems were all developed and computerized based on data
describing job requirements in terms of the objectively defined behaviorally-anchored rating scales found in
the Handbook for Analyzing Jobs-Revised (HAJ-R; USDOL, 1972; Reprinted, 1976; Re-revised 1991).
Formal Propositions and Corollaries of the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment
The following was excerpted from The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment by Rene V. Dawis (Bolton,
1976).
The following propositions, designed by the authors [(Dawis, Lofquist & Weiss (1968), pp. 9-11)] to
serve as a basis for research, state the Theory of Work Adjustment more formally:
Proposition I. An individual's work adjustment at any point in time is indicated by his
concurrent levels of satisfactoriness and satisfaction.
Proposition II. Satisfactoriness is a function of the correspondence between an individual's
abilities and the ability requirements of the work environment, provided that the individuals
needs correspond with the reinforcer system of the work environment.
Corollary IIa. Knowledge of an individual's abilities and of his satisfactoriness
permits the determination of the effective ability requirements of the work
environment.
Corollary IIb. Knowledge of the ability requirements of the work environment and
of an individual's satisfactoriness permits the inference of an individual's abilities.
Proposition III: Satisfaction is a function of the correspondence between the reinforcer
system of the work environment and the individual's needs, provided that the individual's
abilities correspond with the ability requirements of the work environment.
Corollary IIIa. Knowledge of an individual's needs and of his satisfaction permits
the determination of the effective reinforcer system of the work environment for the
individual.
Corollary IIIb. Knowledge of the reinforcer system of the work environment and of
an individual's satisfaction permits the inference of an individual's needs.
Proposition IV. Satisfaction moderates the functional relationship between satisfactoriness
and ability-requirement correspondence.
Proposition V. Satisfactoriness moderates the functional relationship between satisfaction
and need-reinforcer correspondence.
Proposition VI. The probability of an individual being forced out of the work environment is
inversely related to his satisfactoriness.
Proposition VII. The probability of an individual voluntarily leaving the work environment
is inversely related to his satisfaction.
Combining Propositions VI and VII, we have:
Proposition VIII. Tenure is a joint function of satisfactoriness and satisfaction.
Given Propositions II, III, and VIII, this corollary follows:
Corollary VIIIa. Tenure is a function of ability-requirement and need-reinforcer
correspondence.
Proposition IX. Work personality-work environment correspondence increases as a function
of tenure. (pp. 234-235).
Basic Concepts of the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment
In an effort to simplify and further explain The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment, Dawis (In: Bolton,
1976), said:
Speaking at a simple level, a theory is an account of what is happening or what has happened. The
Theory of Work Adjustment, then, is an account of what is happening or what has taken place in
work adjustment. As an account, the theory is itself, quite simple.
Tenure, Satisfaction, and Satisfactoriness
When a person goes to work, one of the first objective observations that can be made is that he/she
continues on the job for a certain length of time. Tenure, length of time on a job, is a basic concept
of the Theory of Work Adjustment. Tenure implies a minimal level of work adjustment in terms of
correspondence between Satisfactoriness and Satisfaction. If an employee's work adjustment were to
drop below this level, then it is presumed that he/she would be let go (fired) from, or would
otherwise leave (quit), the job.
...
Tenure, satisfaction, and satisfactoriness, then, are the basic outcomes, or dependent variables, of
work adjustment. To the extent that work adjustment has taken place, tenure, satisfaction, and
satisfactoriness would be manifested to some commensurate extent. That is, they are indicators of
work adjustment. These indicators point to the basic factors involved in work adjustment.
Satisfaction suggests factors on the individual side, while satisfactoriness suggests factors on the
work side (viewing work adjustment as what happens when a person goes to work)...." (pp. 229230).
Concepts Linked to Measures Under the
Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment
The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment provided formal foundational underpinning for all worker-traitfactor job person matching systems which later emerged.
Worker Trait Factors, Worker Traits and Worker Trait Elements are operationalized as Worker
Characteristic/Job Requirement component elements on the Job Satisfactoriness, Abilities, Ability
Requirements and Occupational Aptitude Pattern (OAP) side of the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment
equation.
Worker Interests, Temperaments, Attitudes, Satisfaction, Needs, Values and Occupational Reinforcer
Patterns (ORP) are operationalized as Worker Characteristic/Job Requirement component elements on the
Job Satisfaction, Worker Needs and Work Reinforcer Systems side of the Minnesota Theory of Work
Adjustment equation.
Perhaps Dawis (Ch. 13, In: Bolton, 1976, pp. 227-248) said it best:
A formal test of a theory requires that the theory's concepts be operationalized, i.e., stated in
terms precisely and specifically describing the operations by which observations are to be made in
order to confirm or to disconfirm the theory or any part of it. This requirement is usually fulfilled
through the use of instruments in data collection. (p. 235).
For the Theory of Work Adjustment, six instruments would be needed to make the requisite
observations, measures of the following six concepts (p. 234-240):
Concepts
1) Satisfactoriness,
Instruments/Measures*
Minnesota Satisfactoriness Scales (MSS)
2) Satisfaction,
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ)
3) Abilities,
General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB)
Related Extensions
*Maximum Least Demonstrated Worker Traits
Functioning across Successfully Demonstrated
Work History, extracted using the Vocational
Diagnosis and Assessment of Residual
Employability (VDARE) Process which was
based on Worker Traits/Job Requirements
Profiles rated on HAJ behaviorally anchored
Job Analysis Scales identified in the Realistic
Occupational Counseling (ROC) Handbook, or
the Encyclopedia of Job Requirements (EOJR).
*Many Aptitude, Achievement, & Ability test
results crunched with the McPLOT Program.
*Physical Capacities, Environmental Tolerances
rated on Handbook for Analyzing Jobs (HAJ)
behaviorally anchored Job Analysis Scales.
4) Ability Requirements, Occupational Aptitude Patterns (OAPs)
Related Extensions
*Worker Traits/Job Requirements Profiles
rated on HAJ behaviorally anchored Job
Analysis Scales identified using the Realistic
Occupational Counseling (ROC) Handbook, or
the Encyclopedia of Job Requirements (EOJR).
5) Needs, and
Related Extensions
MN Importance Questionnaire (MIQ)
MVQS Occupational Values & Needs Inventory
6) Reinforcer Systems
MN Job Description Questionnaire (MJDQ)
~Occupational Reinforcer Patterns (ORPs)
Related Extensions
MVQS Vocational Interest & Personality
Reinforcer (VIPR) Type Indicator
Measures of satisfactoriness and satisfaction would be the outcome or criterion measures. (Tenure is
an outcome variable, too, but this can be observed without the need for instrumentation.)
Measures of abilities and needs would be required to describe the person, while measures of ability
requirements and reinforcer systems would be needed to describe the work environment.
To enable the measurement of correspondence, one approach would be to develop parallel measures
of people and work environments; that is, measures of abilities and ability requirements should
utilize the same set of ability dimensions, and likewise, measures of needs and reinforcers should
utilize the same set of reinforcement dimensions. This approach was followed in the Work
Adjustment Project. . . . (pp. 234~240).
* [Selected emphases and Instruments/Measures added].
Original Extensions of the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment
Work adjustment (i.e., the achieving and maintaining of individual- environmental correspondence) is an
interactive process. Work adjustment mechanisms involving Correspondence, Discorrespondence,
Flexibility, Activeness, Reactiveness, and Rate of Work Adjustment, on the part of both the individual and
the work environment, were early extensions of the theory, which were present, operationally definable, and
observable, relative to testable hypotheses regarding their impact on work adjustment over time.
The Realistic Occupational Counseling (ROC) Handbook (Wattenbarger & McCroskey, 1978) was the first
private sector supplement to the 1965 Dictionary of Occupational Titles. It provided the original modal
worker trait factor profiles used for work history analysis and post-injury residual employability job-person
matching using the VDARE Process. The 114 modal worker trait job requirement profiles in the ROC
Handbook provided the original database for the Realistic Occupational Counseling Computerized JobPerson Matching Transferable Skills Analysis (TSA) Program. The ROC TSA Program was the first worker
trait factor job-person-matching program developed for use on mainframe computers at the University of
Georgia (Wattenbarger & McCroskey, 1978).
Other Extensions of the Theory
Research on other Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment Extensions (e.g., concepts, constructs, link
relatives, occupational values and needs, vocational interests and personality reinforcer type indicators)
impacting on our understanding of work adjustment have been operationally defined, studied and found
supportive of Propositions identified in the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment.
Other Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment Extensions include, but are not limited to, Differential:
1) VDARE Residual Employability Profiling (McCroskey, Wattenbarger, Field & Sink, 1977.
2) Vocational Potential Profiling in SSA Disability Determination (Wattenbarger, 1981).
3) The Vocational Quotient (VQ) as a Differential Measure of Overall Job Difficulty and Maximum
Vocational Potential (McCroskey & Perkins, 1981).
4) Job Value (McCroskey & Lowe, 1986, 1987).
5) Test Validity (McCroskey & Perkins, 1981; McCroskey, Streater, Timming, Wattenbarger & Lowe,
1989; 1991).
6) Job Service Work Orders Starting Wage Prediction (McCroskey & Lowe, 1987).
7) Rehabilitation Clients Return-to-Work Wage Prediction (Mayer, 1995).
8) Overall Average and Typical Starting Wage Prediction (McCroskey, 1992)
9) Earning Capacity Link Relatives (ECLRs) to Enhance Pre-Injury Earning Capacity Prediction at the
Local Labor Market Level (McCroskey, 1992, 1997, 1998, 2000).
10) Earning Capacity Link Relatives (ECLRs) to Enhance Post-Injury Earning Capacity Prediction at
the Local Labor Market Level. (McCroskey, 1992).
11) Six point (Mean, 10th, 25th, 50th [Median], 75th and 90th Percentile) wage earning capacity
criterion-referenced relative to National Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) prediction
estimates (McCroskey, Hahn & Dennis, 2001).
12) The Occupational Values and Needs Inventory (McCroskey, 2001 - modeled after the original
Minnesota Importance Questionnaire and criterion-referenced relative to specific 9-digit McDOT
5th Edition DOT Job Types).
13) The Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Job Type Indicator (McCroskey, 2001 modeled after Jung-based People Personality Types and criterion-referenced relative to specific 9digit McDOT 5th Edition DOT Job Types, cross-walked from corresponding Jung-based People
Personality Types).
From Manual to Computerized Job-Person Matching
Job-Person Matching Systems initially began with manual matching systems. Botterbusch (1986) informed
us that efforts to develop job-person matching systems as we know them today, actually began in the mid1950s when Job Service personnel developed several manual systems for matching General Aptitude Test
Battery (GATB) test results with jobs.
By the late 1970s, all three of Parsons (1909) informal tenets had been achieved in much detail with the
arrival of the Vocational Diagnosis and Assessment of Residual Employability (VDARE) Process
(McCroskey, Wattenbarger, Field & Sink, 1977).
The VDARE Process was based squarely on Proposition II and Corollary IIb with reliance on Proposition
III and Corollary IIIb of the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawis, England and Lofquist, 1964;
Formally restated and expounded on through supporting research by Dawis, R.V., 1976, In: Bolton, 1976).
VDARE became an effective tool in the hands of vocational experts around the country. This was especially
true for Expert Witness testimony in Social Security Disability Claims, where reference to previously
demonstrated work history, residual functioning, and transferable skills were major considerations
[Botterbusch (1986)].
In 1978, the zeitgeist was ready for improvement and better utilization of existing job-person-matching
systems through the much more efficient use of computers (McCroskey, Streater, Timming, Wattenbarger &
Lowe, 1989; 1991). In 1978, the ROC TSA became the first mainframe computerized job person matching
system. It was developed at the University of Georgia (Wattenbarger & McCroskey, 1978). It was used
primarily as a tool for reliable vocational expert analysis of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)
applicant appeal cases. Primary considerations for these analyses included age, education, past relevant
work history and work restrictions stemming from medical and/or psychological disabilities.
With the advent of personal computers in the early 1980s, the Datamaster Transferable Skills Analysis
(TSA) Program (McCroskey, 1982) was developed, with many revisions and updates to follow (McCroskey,
1982,1983, 1985, 1987, 1989 & 1990). It was the first micro-computerized worker-trait-factor job-person
matching TSA system designed specifically for use on Personal Computers. Others soon followed.
Comparing Computerized Job-Person Matching Systems
Botterbusch (1983) identified, described and compared eight computerized worker-trait-factor job-personmatching systems. In his update, Botterbusch (1986) identified, described and compared 15 such programs.
Brown, McDaniel, Couch and McClanahan (1994) expanded on the earlier works of Botterbusch in their
publication entitled: Vocational Evaluation Systems and Software: A Consumer’s Guide.
Dennis & Dennis (1998) in their article, Job Search Software under Daubert, informed us that:
In the 1993 Daubert decision, the United States Supreme Court established scientific
knowledge as the standard for admissibility for expert testimony (Feldbaum & McCroskey,
1995, Feldbaum, 1997). This standard can be anticipated to have a significant impact on
psychological, rehabilitation, vocational and economic experts. One general expectation is
that the instruments used to assess disabilities and predict their consequence will need to be
reliable (provide consistent results), valid (measure what it is expected to measure) and
accurately predict outcomes with reasonable certainty and known acceptable error rates
(accuracy of predictions).
The developers of Job Search Software listed by Brown, McDaniel, Couch and McClanahan (1994) were
interviewed by phone to determine the scientific attributes of their software. Where available, relevant
research to their products was reviewed as well. The responses of the vendors to the possibility of Daubert
restricting the use of their software were varied. All the respondents were aware of the 1993 Daubert
decision. Only two programs were found to have any research regarding reliability, validity and error rate
issues addressed in the Daubert decision. Some expected there to be major upheavals in the future. Others
took a more conservative or wait-and-see attitude.
Dennis & Dennis (1998) found one program, the McCroskey Vocational Quotient System Transferable
Skills Analysis Program (MVQS MTSP) to have 50+ validity research publications, since 1986 to date and
continuing. MTSP was underpinned with on-going scientific research designed to address vitally important
issues. These included Reliability, Predictive Validity, and Standard Error of Estimate rates, identified by
the US Supreme Court in the Daubert decision, as being the key criteria to be used by judges in their roles
as gatekeepers for determining admissibility of expert witness testimony.
Clearly, many decades of patience, research and development have begun to produce a fruitful realization of
Parson’s intuitive direction. Efforts must continue with the collection, analysis and synthesis of on-going
research, into renewed development of vocational theory and practice. Theories must be refined through
research. New tools for more efficiently and effectively matching workers with jobs must continue to be
developed and updated. New hypotheses must be empirically tested through research on those tools. Results
of those studies must be published in peer-reviewed journals to keep our peers abreast of the research
evidence if we are to continue understanding, refining and providing evidence of the reliability and validity
of our theories to the courts and other interested parties.
The O*NET 98 Transferable Skills (TS) Paradigm
The 1998 USDOLETA-O*NET 98 Transferability of Skills Paradigm in the MVQS MTSP
1998/2000/2001 Transferable Skills Analysis (TSA) Super Sort?
In 1998, 5- or 6-character Occupational Unit Classification (OUC) Coded Transferable Skills Groups (often
referred to as O*NET 98 TS Code Groups) were developed for O*NET 98. The O*NET 98/OUC TS Code
Groups were derived from USDOL Occupational Employment Statistic (OES) Codes (which are identified
by the first 5 digits, of the 5-digit or 6-character OUC Codes, found in Section 7, Part 2, of the MTSP 8.0R
and MTSP 2000/2001 TSA Program Job Profile Reports).
OES Codes were empirically studied using Cluster Analysis for purposes of establishing O*NET 98
Transferable Skill (TS) Groups. Outliers (jobs which didn't belong) were statistically identified using
Euclidean Distance Measures coupled with Ward's Minimum Variance Method (Ward, 1963) and
reclassified into OES groups or subgroups, or reassigned to other groups or subgroups, as necessary to
assure:
1) Belongingness (where the work activities of each 9-digit DOT coded occupation had to match the
definition of the occupational category under which it was grouped),
2) Homogeneity (where differences within a single category had to be less than differences between
categories and all 9-digit DOT coded occupations within a single category had to be less than
differences between categories and all the 9-digit DOT coded occupations within a single category had
to show consistency of skill transferability),
To accomplish Belongingness and Homogeneity, the three lone variables (MPSMS, METWA and SVP),
previously used by the United States Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration
(USDOLETA) to conceptually define their Old Transferability Of Skills Paradigm, were, in 1998,
operationally redefined with 28 Occupational Classification Codes, Worker Traits, Temperaments
and Aggregate variables in their New Expanded Transferability Of Skills Paradigm.
O*NET 98 Transferable Skills Groups
As a result of the Cluster Analyses which were completed and finalized for the new O*NET 98 Transferable
Skills Groupings, 1,172 Occupational Unit Classification (OUC) Groups, or, as they have become better
known, O*NET 98 Code Transferable Skills (TS) Groups, were created.
O*NET Code TS Groups were based on USDOL Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Code Groups,
which are identified by the first 5 digits, of each 5-digit or 6-character O*NET 98 Code TS Group. Thus,
OUC/O*NET Code TS Groups are highly refined, empirically derived Transferable Skills Subgroups,
within the OES Code Group Classification Structure.
Of the 1,172 identified O*NET 98 Code TS Groups, Means Data Profiles for 1,122 were reported in the US
DOLETA O*NET 98 Version 1.0 Program. Researchers at Vocationology, Inc. constructed Means Data
Profiles for the remaining 50 O*NET 98 Code Groups (not reported in the US DOLETA O*NET 98
Version 1.0 Program), and added two new groups (each containing only 1 job), bringing the total N to 1,174
groups. Vocationology researchers also reconstituted 12 jobs which were reclassified with different 9-digit
DOT Codes by O*NET 98 researchers.

In the McDOT2001 program, there are 12,775 specific unduplicated 9-digit DOT-Coded Jobs and
12,811, 9-digit DOT-Coded Jobs contained in the McDOT 2000 Crosswalk when duplicated jobs are
included. In McDOT2001 each job has a specific worker traits/job requirements profile with respect
to the 24 vocationally significant worker traits and 3 aggregate variables (VQ, SVP and ZONE).

In the O*NET 98 Version 1.0 Viewer Program, there were 12,761, 9-digit DOT-Coded Jobs
contained in the O*NET 98 DOT Crosswalk of unduplicated jobs (1,124 of which means data
element profiles are not viewable in the O*NET 98 Viewer) and 12,797, 9-digit DOT-Coded Jobs
contained in the O*NET 98 DOT Crosswalk, when duplicated 9-digit DOT-Coded Jobs are
included.
A total of 1.3 percent of the OUC/O*NET Code TS groups (N=15) constitute 38 percent (N=4,889) of the
12,811 (counting all duplications), 9-digit DOT coded jobs. Such a large collection of jobs within so few
OU Code groups drastically limits how precise you can be about specific jobs, job tasks, or work sites. The
O*NET 98 Occupational Unit (OU) Code by DOT job count distribution is a grossly skewed distribution,
which clearly requires job-person matching be accomplished at the job specific worker traits/job
requirements profiles level, if we are to avoid overstating transferable skills for any given client.
The type of downsizing accomplished in the development of O*NET 98 (Version 1.0) Program by failing to
reanalyze specific 9-digit DOT-Coded jobs was neither theoretically nor practically sound. Analyzing
O*NET TS groups of jobs and reporting group means data only, may have been cost-efficient for O*NET,
but their failure to collect and deliver specific job analysis data has not been good for vocational experts
and related vocational professionals, who need job specific, not grouped means, data. While their
development of O*NET TS Groups deserves a great deal of credit, they should have stuck with the original
plan and developed a 5th edition DOT versus trying to replace it.
Figure 1: Counts of 9-Digit DOT Codes w/Duplicates (N=12,797)
Across All 1,172 O*NET 98 Occupational Units (OUs) Including the 50
All Other OUs
800
9-Digit DOT Codes at each O*NET OU Code Group
700
600
500
DOTCOUNT
400
300
200
100
81
260
32
5
14
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
Number of O*NET 98 OU Code Groups (N=1,172) at each DOT Count
MVQS2001 MTSP Transferable Skills Analysis (TSA) Valence Levels
The 1998 US DOLETA-O*NET 98 Transferability of Skills Paradigm was expanded to include Percent of
Transferability (Valence) and incorporated in the MTSP 8.0R Program on 10/15/98. It was included in the
MTSP 2000 Transferable Skills Analysis (TSA) Super Sort on 01/01/2000. Following the very high validity
findings identified in the Grimley, Williams, Hahn & Dennis (2000) validation study11, it was included as a
part of the MVQS2001 MTSP Transferable Skills Analysis (TSA) Super Sort on 01/01/2001.
11 Grimley, Williams, Hahn & Dennis. (2000). Scientific Prediction of Transferable Skills. Journal of
Forensic Vocationology Vol. (6)1, pp. 7-16. Simultaneously printed for broader distribution as: A Scientific
Approach to Transferable Skills. (2000). Journal of Forensic Vocational Analysis. Vol. 3(1), pp. 47-54.
Percent of Transferable Skills Valence
80 - 97%
60 - 79%
40 - 59%
20 - 39%
00 - 19%
Level of Transferable Skills
5 - High Percentage of Skills
4 - Moderate Percentage of Skills
3 - Low Percentage of Skills
2 - Skills Required Not Available
1 - Skills Not Required
The Expanded MVQS2001 MTSP Transferable Skills (TS) Paradigm
The Expanded MVQS2001 Transferability of Skills Paradigm includes consideration of the same 28
codes and scales used for developing the 1,172 O*NET TS Groups:
1) Primary Materials, Products, Subject Matter and Services (MPSMS) code,
2) Secondary Materials, Products, Subject Matter and Services (MPSMS) code,
3) Tertiary Materials, Products, Subject Matter and Services (MPSMS) code,
4) Primary Work Field: Machines, Tools, Equipment and Work Aid (MTEWA) code,
5) Secondary Work Field: Machines, Tools, Equipment & Work Aid (MTEWA) code,
6) Tertiary Work Field: Machines, Tools, Equipment and Work Aids (MTEWA) code,
7) Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP),
8) (D)ata Complexity,
9) (P)eople Complexity,
10) (T)hings Complexity,
11) General Educational Development: (R)easoning,
12) General Educational Development: (M)ath,
13) General Educational Development: (L)anguage,
14) (G)eneral Learning Ability Aptitude,
15) (V)erbal Aptitude,
16) (N)umerical Aptitude,
17) (S)patial Perception Aptitude,
18) (P) Form Perception Aptitude,
19) (Q) Clerical Perception Aptitude,
20) (K) Motor Coordination Aptitude,
21) (F)inger Dexterity Aptitude,
22) (M)anual Dexterity Aptitude,
23) (E)ye-Hand-Foot Coordination Aptitude
24) (C)olor Discrimination Aptitude
25) (D)irecting Temperament,
26) (P)eople Temperament,
27) (I)nfluencing Temperament, and
28) (E)xpressing Temperament.
Theory, Reliability, Predictive Validity and Error
Rates Associated with the VDARE Process and MVQS
Vocational Analysis
Theoretical Underpinning: VDARE Vocational Analysis
Under the VDARE Vocational Analysis Process, Proposition I of the Minnesota Theory of Work
Adjustment is assumed to be true, therefore:

The VDARE Vocational Analysis Process is based squarely on Proposition II and
Corollary IIb with reliance on Proposition III and Corollary IIIb of the Minnesota Theory
of Work Adjustment (Dawis, England and Lofquist, 1964; Formally restated and
expounded on through supporting research by Dawis, R.V., 1976, In: Bolton, 1976).
Theoretical Underpinning: MVQS Vocational Analysis
The MVQS Vocational Analysis Process relies heavily on the VDARE Vocational Analysis Process, and
thus, under MVQS Vocational Analysis Process, Proposition I of the Minnesota Theory of Work
Adjustment is also assumed to be true, therefore:

The MVQS Vocational Analysis Process is also based squarely on Proposition II
and Corollary IIb with reliance on Proposition III and Corollary IIIb of the Minnesota
Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawis, England and Lofquist, 1964; Formally restated and
expounded on through supporting research by Dawis, R.V., 1976, In: Bolton, 1976).
Reliability, Validity and Error Rates for the VDARE Process
Research supports the following Reliability, Validity and Error Rate statistics as applicable to the VDARE
Process and to the MVQS Vocational Analysis Process (which incorporates and expands VDARE using the
McDOT, McPLOT and MTSP Programs), with reasonable vocational, rehabilitation economic and statistical
certainty:

Inter-Rater Reliability Using the VDARE Vocational Analysis Process - Three-Way Inter-Rater
Reliability for using the VDARE Process for Residual Employability Profiling has been found to
be in the Extremely High range at Rxxx=0.9944 (McCroskey, 1979).

Predictive Validity & Known Error Rates Using the VDARE Process - In a dissertation level
validation study on the VDARE Process, McCroskey (1979), found support for the implications
in Proposition II, Corollary IIb, Proposition III and Corollary IIIb, that maximum least
demonstrated satisfactoriness and satisfaction assumptions, reliably derived and implied (Rxxx =
0.9944) from residual employability worker traits/job requirements profiles of successful client
work history, modified by medical restrictions, provided excellent prediction [(93.3% (without
testing) and 96.1% (with testing) agreement, with an error rate from 3.8% (with testing) and
8.4% (without testing)] of post rehabilitation services job requirement profiles of jobs at time of
placement, in which tenure ensued. A series of follow-up validation studies (Burge, 1978; Field,
McCroskey, Grimes & Wattenbarger, 1978; Knowles, 1978; Reinhardt, 1978; Teal, 1978; and
Wattenbarger, 1981) with similar findings regarding the validity of the VDARE Process were
described in [McCroskey & Perkins (1981), pp. iii-iv & 41-44].

Vocational Potential in SSA Disability Determination Using VDARE - In a second dissertation
level validation study of the VDARE Process, Wattenbarger (1981), found support for
Proposition II, Corollary IIb, Proposition III, and Corollary IIIb of the theory, that maximum
least demonstrated satisfactoriness and satisfaction assumptions, reliably derived and implied
from residual employability worker traits/job requirements profiles of successful client work
history, modified by medical restrictions, provided excellent prediction of Social Security
Administration (SSA) eligibility decisions made using the SSA Grid System. In his case review
research, Wattenbarger compared independent hypothetical findings based on the VDARE
Process, with actual eligibility decisions made by Georgia Disability Determination Unit (DDU)
examiners. He found 67% agreement with DDU examiners Grid System based decisions and
33% disagreement with their decisions.
Reliability, Validity and Error Rates for the MVQS
Vocational Analysis Process

Inter-Rater Reliability Using the MVQS Vocational Analysis Process: Three-Way Inter-Rater
Reliability for using the MVQS McDOT, McPLOT and MTSP Programs in tandem has been
found to be in the Extremely High range at Rxxx=0.9864 (McCroskey, Smolarski & Haskins,
1995).

Predictive Validity and Known Error Rate Using VQ-Wage Data: Predictive Validity associated
with Pre- and Post-Injury VQ-Wage Earning Capacity Predictions relative to Job Service Work
Order Openings and Wage Offered data has been found to be Extremely High at around
Rxy=0.91, with an error rate (SEe=$0.50/hr) of plus or minus $0.50/hr with 67% confidence and
plus or minus $1.00/hr with 95% confidence. (McCroskey & Hahn, 1998, McCroskey, 2000).

Predictive Validity & Known Error Rate Using VQ-OES Wage Data: Predictive Validity
associated with Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Employment and Wage Estimates
has been found to be Very High at Rxy=0.68, with a known error rate (SEe=$1.01/hr) of plus or
minus $1.01/hr with 67% confidence and plus or minus $2.02/hr with 95% confidence (Dennis &
McCroskey, 1999; McCroskey & Dennis, 1999).
Validity Studies: The MVQS Vocational Quotient (VQ) as a
Predictor of Earning Capacity
In their study, Dennis & Dennis (1998) identified one program (MVQS MTSP) with 50+ validity research
publications, since 1986 to date and continuing (See graphic representations below). Researchers at
Vocationology, Inc., are aggressively moving forward with on-going scientific research to address the
vitally important issues pertaining to Inter-Rater Reliability, Predictive Validity, and known Standard Error
of Estimate rates identified by the US Supreme Court in the Daubert decision, as being the key criteria, to be
used by judges in their gatekeeper role, for determining admissibility of expert witness testimony.
Graphically displayed below are three figures summarizing the results from the majority of the 50+ studies
which have been completed and presented in white paper presentations at national conferences, workshops,
seminars, and/or published in books or national peer-reviewed journals between 1986 and 1999:
MTSP Rxy Studies of VQ as a Predictor of Earning Capacity
1.00
0.90
0.80
Rxy Predictive Validity Coefficient
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
1997
w
1997t
1997q
1997n
1997k
1997h
1997e
1997b
1995d
1995a
1991d
1991a
1987b
1987b
1987b
1986
0.00
Year
Removal of Outliers
As reflected in the above graph, in 1997 these regression analysis studies began removing statistical Outliers
(standard method, where the Actual Wage was greater than + or - 2 Standard Deviations of the Predicted
Wage) from the VQ-Wage data distributions. This resulted in significant improvements in predictive validity
coefficients (Rxy) and coefficients of determination (R2), along with corresponding decreases in standard
errors of estimates (SEE) for prediction estimates within the + or - two standard deviations of the regression
line of best fit (95% Confidence Level).
MTSP Rxy & R2 Studies of VQ as a Predictor of Earning Capacity
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
Rxy
0.50
R2
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
The above graph depicts the improvements in Predictive Validity (Rxy) and Coefficients of Determination
(R2) achieved over time.
Standard Error of Estimate (SEE) Results in Chronological Order from
MTSP VQ-Wage Data Earning Capacity Studies: 1984-1997
$7.00
$6.00
US Dollars Per Hour
$5.00
$4.00
SEE67
SEE95
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0
10
20
30
40
50
SEE Plots at the 67% and 95% Levels of Confidence
In reviewing the above graphical representations of 50+ Predictive Validity research studies, it is clear that
VQ-Wage Predictive Validity Coefficents (Rxy), Coefficients of Determination (R2), and Standard Errors of
Estimate (SEE) have improved over time (from High-Level in 1986, to Extremely High-Level Validity by the
late 1990s). The most recent MVQS MTSP combined 7-state (California, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota,
Virginia, Washington & Wisconsin) studies confirm these trends as continuing patterns.
Using MTSP2001 Job Bank Filters to Predict State Job Types and Job
Openings: Reliability, Validity and Error Rates
Data used in the analysis of the reliability, validity and error rates of using MTSP2001 Job Bank Filters to
Predict State Job Types and Job Openings was collected from Work Force Development Centers covering
seven States. Only the most current data available was used to assure reasonable timeliness of the
prediction. The Seven State Job Bank databases containing specific MVQS 9-digit McDOT Coded Job
Types and Job Openings used in this study were compiled from the seven Database Sets indicated below:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
California Data = Fiscal Year 1999.
Florida Data = Program Year 1999.
Idaho Data = 4th quarter 1999, 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarters 2000.
Louisiana Data = Fiscal Year 1999.
Minnesota Data = 4th quarter 1997, 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarters 1998.
North Carolina Data = Program Year 1999.
Virginia Data = Fiscal Year 1999.
Tabled Summary Data
Table 1
Table 1: Actual DOTCodes vs. Predicted DOTCodes - Accuracy & Error in MVQS2001 Job Banks
CA
Actual DOTCodes:
FL
ID
LA
MN
NC
VA
5,650
4,147
2,318
2,022
2,861
4,716
3,060
Predicted DOTCodes:
3,033
2,399
1,686
1,350
1,898
1,956
1,963
Percent Accuracy:
53.68
57.85
72.74
66.77
66.34
41.48
64.15
Percent Error:
46.32
42.15
27.26
33.23
33.66
58.52
35.85
Mean Percent of DOT Codes Accurately Predicted:
60.43
Mean Percent of DOT Codes Not Predicted (Error):
39.57
Table 2
Table 2: Actual Openings vs. Predicted Openings - Accuracy & Error in MVQS2001 Job Banks
CA
Actual Openings:
FL
ID
LA
MN
NC
VA
1,908,434
240,961
152,721
76,887
105,625
308,025
182,733
Predicted Openings:
1,899,700
221,543
149,321
69,525
102,800
242,964
149,853
Percent Accuracy:
99.54
91.94
97.77
90.42
97.33
78.88
82.01
Percent Error:
0.46
8.06
2.23
9.58
2.67
21.12
17.99
Mean Percent of Job Openings Accurately Predicted:
91.13
Mean Percent of Job Openings Not Predicted (Error):
8.87
Table 3: MVQS MTSP2001 Job Banks Accuracy
CA
FL
ID
LA
MN
NC
VA
Opens
99.54
91.94
97.77
90.42
97.33
78.88
82.01
Titles
53.68
57.85
72.74
66.77
66.34
41.48
64.15
MTSP2001 Job Banks Accuracy
120
Percent Accuracy
100
80
60
40
20
0
CA
FL
ID
LA
MN
NC
VA
The Seven States Compared
Opens
Titles
Figure 1: MTSP2001 Job Banks Accuracy
Conclusions
On average, MTSP2001 State Job Banks captured 60.43% of the 9-digit McDOT Coded DOT Job Types
(See above, Table 1), which, on average, represented 91.13% of the Job Openings (See above, Table 2)
found in the Seven State Job Banks used in this study. These findings fit normal expected representation
patterns quite well and lend strong support for predictive validity generalization of the identified very high
levels of validity, reliability and representative content of all MVQS MTSP2001 Job Banks.
Filename: C:\My_Documents\States7.doc
The Four Jung People-based Personality Scales and
Preferences typically associated with those Scales:
1. Energizing - How a person is energized12


Extroversion (E): Preference for drawing energy from the outside world of people, activities
or things.
Introversion (I): Preference for drawing energy from one's internal world of ideas, emotions,
or impressions.
2. Attending - What a person pays attention to


Sensing (S): Preference for using the five senses to determine what is real.
Intuition (N): Preference for using the imagination to envision what is possible - to look
beyond the five senses13.
3. Deciding - How a person decides


Thinking (T): Preference for organizing and structuring information to decide in a logical,
objective way.
Feeling (F): Preference for organizing and structuring information to decide in a personal,
value-oriented way.
4. Living - What Lifestyle a person prefers14


Judgement (J): Preference for living a planned and organized life.
Perception (P): Preference for living a spontaneous and flexible life.
Interpreting VIPR Types Relative to Jung-based People Types
The sixteen Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Types represent clusters of jobs, which
Jung People-Based Personality Types of the same or similar persuasion tend to enjoy doing. The VIPR Type
job reinforcers are similar to the personality reinforcer preference tendencies of the various Jung PeopleBased Types. It is important to remember that MTSP Job Profile Reports do not list all possible jobs under
the headings, only those which match the client's post vocational potential profile.
It is very important to remember that people can, and frequently do, fill jobs in VIPR Type clusters that are
dissimilar to their Jung People Personality Type... this happens all the time... and sometimes works out quite
well.
VIPR Type Job Clusters are sorted in descending order of Client Values Agreement (VA) to provide clients
of the same Jung People-based Personality Type, ordered lists of job matches they would typically tend to
enjoy. Put another way, the Job at the top of any given VIPR Type list not only matches client Vocational
Potential Profile on the 24 most vocationally significant worker traits, but would also tend to satisfy client
Occupational Values and Needs more than any other job down the list.
12 Energizing is only one facet of this scale. It is also a measure of an individual's whole orientation
towards either the Inner world (I) or the External world (E).
13 Jung called this unconscious perceiving.
14 Alternatively, this scale may be defined in terms of Closure - whether or not a person prefers an openended lifestyle.
Excerpts from the US Department of the Interior (DOI) Web Site15 Describing
Personality Instruments and their Potential Vocational Uses
"Personality instruments are tools that give continuing insight into ourselves and others. They
are frequently used to help individuals see their preferences, potential strengths and
weaknesses, and how they relate to different occupations. They can be a powerful tool in
helping an individual select a potentially satisfying occupation and/or field of study.
Two of the most well-known personality instruments are the Keirsey Temperament Sorter16
and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®17. Both deal with four very strong categories for
taking in and processing information, plus interacting with the world18. These instruments
are based on the work of the Swiss psychiatrist, Carl Jung.
This unit uses the Keirsey Temperament Sorter to identify a basic personality type. You may
then use this information to direct you to different careers.
Before completing the Keirsey, it is important to be aware of some important points:




The Keirsey measures preferences, not skills. We can all do things we do not prefer. This
is about what you do when you have your druthers.
There are no right or wrong responses, only those that fit you and those that do not!
One personality type is not better than another. Each has a richness and potential as great
as the others. You are the final judge.
After you receive your 4-letter type, you'll be able to weigh whether the description fits
you and make changes. Read an explanation of what the letters represent." (See next
Page).
15 http://www.doi.gov/octc/personal.html
16 http://www.keirsey.com/
17 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® is a Registered Trademark of Consulting Psychologists Press (CPP).
18 Keirsey Temperament Sorter® & AdvisorTeam FAQ #1 (Source: http://www.keirsey.com/faq/html)
Question 1: Is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator the same as the Keirsey Temperament Sorter.
No. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is trademarked and copyrighted by Consulting Psychological Press.
The Keirsey Temperament Sorter is trademarked and copyrighted by Prometheus Nemesis Book Company
Inc. They are different personality inventories. However, they are very similar in result (approximately .80
correlation) because they are both based on the work of the Psychologist, Carl Jung. The MBTI measures 4
scales of personality and categorizes individuals into 1 of 16 types using a 4 letter score. Each scale is
viewed independently of the others. Dr. Keirsey believes that these four scales are not independent of each
other and that the most important feature of Jung's Character Types are the two letter pairings that make up
what Keirsey has popularized as Temperament. Dr. Keirsey coined the terms Artisan, Guardian, Rational
and Idealist to describe these 4 main personality types. He then further subdivided the 4 temperaments into
four character variants [each] and popularized the terms used to describe them [the 16 character variants].
Definitions Relating to Personality Type Letter Designations
What Do Those Letters Represent...?19
Refers to how a person is energized
Extraversion
Introversion
Shows a preference for drawing energy from the
outside word of people, activities or things.
Shows a preference for drawing energy from one's
internal world of emotions or impressions.
Refers to what a person pays attention to
Sensing
iNtuition
Shows a preference for trusting information received Shows a preference for trusting information received
through the five senses and noticing what is actual.
through a "sixth sense" and noticing what might be.
Refers to what a person most trusts when making a decision
Thinking
Feeling
Shows a preference for trusting logical and objective
information.
Shows a preference for trusting
personal and value-oriented
information.
Refers to the life style a person adopts
Judgment
Shows a preference for living
a planned and organized life.
Perception
Shows a preference for living a spontaneous and
flexible life.
19 Source: Department of Interior Web Site: http://www.doi.gov/octc/scales/htm
Selected Additional Background Information, Insight and Recommendations Posted on the US Department of the Interior
(DOI) Web Site Regarding Connecting Personality Types With Careers and Jobs
Connecting Personality Types With Careers and Jobs20
Before looking at the lists below...
The lists represent careers and jobs people of various types tend to enjoy doing. The job requirements are
similar to the personality tendencies of the various types. It is important to remember that these do not list
all the jobs possible under the headings. And it is very important to remember that people can, and
frequently do, fill jobs that are dissimilar to their personality... this happens all the time... and sometimes
works out quite well.
Why then should we even consult these lists?
The lists are just another tool to give you ideas about careers and jobs you might enjoy. Use the lists as
[a] tool, not a box!
20 Source: U.S. Department of the Interior Web Site: http://www.doi.gov/octc/typescar.html
Partial Lists of Extravert Reinforcer Careers and Jobs from the US Department of the Interior (DOI) Web Site
ESTP
ESFP
ENFP
real estate broker
veterinarian
conference planner
chef
flight attendant
speech pathologist
land developer
floral designer
HR development trainer
physical therapist
real estate agent
ombudsman
stock broker
child care provider
clergy
news reporter
social worker
journalist
fire fighter
fundraiser
newscaster
promoter
athletic coach
career counselor
entrepreneur
musician
housing director
pilot
secretary
character actor
budget analyst
receptionist
marketing consultant
insurance agent
special events producer
musician/composer
management
teacher: preschool
artist
consultant
teacher: elementary
information-graphics
franchise owner
emergency room nurse
...designer
electrical engineer
occupational therapist
human resource
aircraft mechanic
exercise physiologist
manager
technical trainer
team trainer
merchandise planner
EEG technologist
travel sales
advertising account
radiological technician
public relations
manager
emergency medical
specialist
dietitian/nutritionist
tech.
waiter/waitress
speech pathologist
corrections officer
labor relations mediator
massage therapist
flight attendant
editor/art director
ESTJ
government employee
pharmaceutical sales
auditor
computer analyst
technical trainer
project manager
officer manager
factory supervisor
credit analyst
electrical engineer
stockbroker
regulatory compliance
...officer
chief information
officer
construction worker
general contractor
paralegal
industrial engineer
budget analyst
data base manager
funeral director
cook
security guard
dentist
ENTP
systems designer
venture capitalist
actor
journalist
investment broker
real estate agent
real estate developer
strategic planner
political manager
politician
special projects developer
literary agent
restaurant/bar owner
technical trainer
diversity manager
art director
personnel systems developer
computer analyst
logistics consultant
outplacement consultant
advertising creative director
radio/TV talk show host
ESFJ
ENFJ
ENTJ
nurse
social worker
caterer
flight attendant
bookkeeper
medical/dental assistant
exercise physiologist
elementary school
teacher
minister/priest/rabbi
retail owner
officer manager
telemarketer
counselor
special education
teacher
merchandise planner
credit counselor
athletic coach
insurance agent
sales representative
massage therapist
medical secretary
child care provider
bilingual education
teacher
professional volunteer
entertainer
recruiter
artist
newscaster
writer/journalist
recreation director
librarian
facilitator
politician
psychologist
housing director
career counselor
sales trainer
travel agent
program designer
corporate/team trainer
child welfare worker
social worker (elderly
...services)
interpreter/translator
occupational therapist
executive: small business
alcohol/drug counselor
sales manager
program designer
attorney
administrator
office manager
chemical engineer
sales manager
logistics consultant
franchise owner
new business developer
personnel manager
investment banker
labor relations
management trainer
credit investigator
mortgage broker
corporate team trainer
environmental engineer
biomedical engineer
business consultant
educational consultant
personal financial planner
network integration
...specialist
media planner/buyer
Partial Lists of Introvert Reinforcer Careers and Jobs from the US Department of the Interior (DOI) Web Site
ISTJ
ISFJ
INFJ
INTJ
management
accounting
auditing
efficiency expert
engineer
geologist
bank examiners
organization
development
electricians
dentists
pharmacist
school principals
school bus drivers
file clerk
stock broker
legal secretary
computer operator
computer
programmer
technical writer
chief information
officer
police officer
real estate agent
counseling
ministry
library work
nursing
secretarial
curators
bookkeepers
dental hygienists
computer operator
personnel administrator
paralegal
real estate agent
artist
interior decorator
retail owner
musician
elementary school
teacher
physical therapist
nurse
social worker
personnel counselor
alcohol/drug counselor
career counselor
psychologist
educational consultant
special education
teacher
librarian
artist
playwright
novelist/poet
editor/art director
information-graphics
...designer
HRM manager
merchandise planner
environmental lawyer
marketer
job analyst
mental health counselor
dietitian/nutritionist
research
educational consultant
architects
interpreter/translator
management consultant
economist
scientist
computer programmer
environmental planner
new business developer
curriculum designer
administrator
mathematician
psychologist
neurologist
biomedical researcher
strategic planner
civil engineer
intellectual properties
attorney
designer
editor/art director
inventor
informational-graphics
...designer
financial planner
judge
ISTP
ISFP
INFP
INTP
surveyor
fire fighter
private investigator
pilot
police officer
purchasing agent
chiropractor
medical technician
securities analyst
computer repair
person
race car driver
computer
programmer
electrical engineer
legal secretary
coach/trainer
commercial artist
carpenter
paralegal
dental assistant
radiological technician
marine biologist
software developer
bookkeeper
clerical supervisor
dental assistant
physical therapist
mechanic
radiology technologist
surveyor
chef
forester
geologist
landscaper designer
crisis hotline operator
teacher: elementary
beautician
typist
jeweler
gardener
potter
painter
botanist
marine biologist
social worker
information-graphics
...designer
college professor
researcher
legal mediator
social worker
holistic health
...practitioner
occupational therapist
diversity manager
human resource
...development specialist
employment
development
...specialist
minister/priest/rabbi
missionary
psychologist
writer: poet/novelist
journalist
editor/art director
organizational
development
...specialist
strategic planning
writer
staff development
lawyer
architect
software designer
financial analyst
college professor
photographer
logician
artist
systems analyst
neurologist
physicist
psychologist
research/development
...specialist
computer programmer
data base manager
chemist
biologist
investigator
Excerpts from the Kelly Web Site21 Describing Five Personality Typologies (PTypes) and
Corresponding Crosswalks of those Five Personality Typologies
PType Personality Types
PType Anyone is free to use any part of this chart with or
Noteworthy Examples
without credit.
s
Correspondence of five personality typologies
PTypes
personality
type1
Keirsey's
MyersBriggs
type2
Riso's
Enneagram
type3
PTypes
personality
disorder4
Brau's
astrological
type5
Conscientious
Sensitive
Vigilant
Dramatic
ENFJ
INFJ
ENFP
INFP
1
4+(5)
6+(5)
4+(3)
Obsessive-Compulsive
Avoidant
Paranoid
Histrionic
Aquarius
Pisces
Scorpio
Leo
Aggressive
Idiosyncratic
Inventive
Solitary
ENTJ
INTJ
ENTP
INTP
8
5+(4)
3+(4)
5+(6)
Sadistic
Schizotypal
Compensatory Narcissistic
Schizoid
Aries
Aries
Gemini
Gemini
Leisurely
Serious
Self-sacrificing
Devoted
ESTJ
ISTJ
ESFJ
ISFJ
9+(8)
9+(1)
2
6+(7)
Passive-Aggressive
Depressive
Masochistic
Dependent
Taurus
Taurus
Cancer
Virgo
Self-confident
Adventurous
Mercurial
Artistic
ESTP
ISTP
ESFP
ISFP
3+(2)
7+(8)
7+(6)
7+(6)
Narcissistic
Antisocial
Borderline
Cyclothymic
Capricorn
Sagittarius
Libra
Libra
References22 Cited on Kelley's Web Site for the above listed Crosswalks
21 http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Resort/5446/correspondence.html
22 Reference
1. Cf. Oldham, John M., and Lois B. Morris. The New Personality Self-Portrait: Why You Think, Work,
Love, and Act the Way You Do. Rev. ed. New York: Bantam, 1995.
2. Keirsey, David, and Marilyn Bates. Please Understand Me: Character and Temperament Types. 3rd ed.
Del Mar: Prometheus Nemesis, 1978.
3. Riso, Don Richard, and Russ Hudson. Personality Types: Using the Enneagram for Self-discovery.
Rev. ed. New York: Houghton, 1996.
4. Cf. Millon, Theodore, and Roger Davis. Disorders of Personality: DSM-IV and Beyond. 2nd ed. New
York: Wiley, 1996.
5. Brau, Jean Louis, Helen Weaver, and Allan Edmands. Larousse Encyclopedia of Astrology. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1980.
Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) General Job-based Personality Types with
Correspondent Crosswalks to General Jung People-based Personality Type
ORD23 TYPE24
DESCRIPT25
01
ESTJ
01
ESTJ
02
ISFP
02
ISFP
03
ESFP
03
ESFP
04
ESTP
04
ESTP
05
ISTJ
05
ISTJ
06
ESFJ
06
ESFJ
07
ISTP
07
ISTP
08
ENTJ
08
ENTJ
Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ESTJ. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOTCoded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 5,063
(39.63%) were classified ESTJ.
Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ESTJ. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter
and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 689,423 (11.01%) were
classified ESTJ as of 12/15/2000.
Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ISFP. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOTCoded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 3,690
(28.88%) were classified ISFP.
Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ISFP. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter
and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 187,154 (2.99%) were
classified ISFP as of 12/15/2000.
Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ESFP. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOTCoded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 919 (7.19%)
were classified ESFP.
Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ESFP. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter
and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 300,792 (4.80%) were
classified ESFP as of 12/15/2000.
Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ESTP. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOTCoded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 541 (4.23%)
were classified ESTP.
Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ESTP. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter
and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 169,604 (2.71%) were
classified ESTP as of 12/15/2000.
Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ISTJ. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOTCoded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 474 (3.71%)
were classified ISTJ.
Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ISTJ. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter
and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 662,915 (10.58%) were
classified ISTJ as of 12/15/2000.
Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ESFJ. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOTCoded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 439 (3.44%)
were classified ESFJ.
Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ESFJ. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter
and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 763,261 (12.19%) were
classified ESFJ as of 12/15/2000.
Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ISTP. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOTCoded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 377 (2.95%)
were classified ISTP.
Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ISTP. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter
and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 135,786 (2.17%) were
classified ISTP as of 12/15/2000.
Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ENTJ. Out of the 12,775 specific 9-digit DOTCoded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 237 (1.86%)
were classified ENTJ.
Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ENTJ. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the Temperament Sorter
and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament Web Site, 198,653 (3.17%) were
classified ENTJ as of 12/15/2000.
23 Order of VIPR Job Type Categories based on Frequencies of Specific Job Types within VIPR
Categories.
24 VIPR General Job-based Personality Types to Jung People-based General Personality Types.
25 Descriptive Statistics for VIPR Job-based Types & Corresponding Jung People-based Personality Types.
Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) General Job-based Personality Types with Correspondent Crosswalks
to General Jung People-based Personality Type
ORD TYPE DESCRIPT
09
ISFJ Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ISFJ. Out of the 12,775 specific
9-digit DOT-Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of
Occupational Titles, 235 (1.84%) were classified ISFJ.
09
ISFJ
Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ISFJ. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the
Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament
Web Site, 605,759 (9.67%) were classified ISFJ as of 12/15/2000.
10
ENTP Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ENTP. Out of the 12,775 specific
9-digit DOT-Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of
Occupational Titles, 215 (1.68%) were classified ENTP.
10
ENTP Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ENTP. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the
Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament
Web Site, 139,331 (2.22%) were classified ENTP as of 12/15/2000.
11
INTJ Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: INTJ. Out of the 12,775 specific
9-digit DOT-Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of
Occupational Titles, 173 (1.35%) were classified INTJ.
11
INTJ Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: INTJ. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the
Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament
Web Site, 328,426 (5.24%) were classified INTJ as of 12/15/2000.
12
INTP Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: INTP. Out of the 12,775 specific
9-digit DOT-Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of
Occupational Titles, 120 (0.94%) were classified INTP.
12
INTP Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: INTP. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the
Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament
Web Site, 193,629 (3.09%) were classified INTP as of 12/15/2000.
13
ENFJ Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ENFJ. Out of the 12,775 specific
9-digit DOT-Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of
Occupational Titles, 91 (0.71%) were classified ENFJ.
13
ENFJ Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ENFJ. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the
Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament
Web Site, 465,565 (7.43%) were classified ENFJ as of 12/15/2000.
14
INFP Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: INFP. Out of the 12,775 specific
9-digit DOT-Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of
Occupational Titles, 90 (0.70%) were classified INFP.
14
INFP Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: INFP. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the
Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament
Web Site, 426,896 (6.82%) were classified INFP as of 12/15/2000.
15
ENFP Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: ENFP. Out of the 12,775 specific
9-digit DOT-Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of
Occupational Titles, 70 (0.55%) were classified ENFP.
15
ENFP Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: ENFP. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the
Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament
Web Site, 538,008 (8.59%) were classified ENFP as of 12/15/2000.
16
INFJ Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer Type: INFJ. Out of the 12,775 specific
9-digit DOT-Coded Job Types in the MVQS2001 McDOT 5th Edition Dictionary of
Occupational Titles, 40 (0.31%) were classified INFJ.
16
INFJ
Jung-based Personality Type Correspondent: INFJ. Out of 6,263,334 people taking the
Temperament Sorter and the Character Sorter on the http://www.keirsey.com/ Temperament
Web Site, 458,132 (7.31%) were classified INFJ as of 12/15/2000.
Methodology
To accomplish the purposes of this study required the reduction of 16 sets of General Careers and Job Type
lists to 16 Most Appropriate, Independent, Mutually Exclusive, sets of Specific Vocational Interest and
Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Job Types
The 16 DOI lists referred to General sets of Careers and Jobs (around 21 or 22 per list). They were nonspecific and contained duplicate Careers and Jobs listings within and across the 16 lists. Since duplicates
were unclassifiable to a single, most appropriate, Specific Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer
(VIPR) Job Type Lists, they were eliminated. This left 11-12 non-duplicated General sets of Careers and
Jobs.
Eliminating duplicate Careers and Jobs from the 16 General Careers and Jobs lists transformed them into
16 Tip of the Iceberg lists of Careers and Jobs Clusters. These Tip of the Iceberg lists were reviewed for
purposes of identifying the 16 most reasonable center-of-the-cluster, mutually exclusive sets of Specific 9digit McDOT Coded VIPR Job Types (N=23 - 43). These sets were required to re-expand each list to include
up to 35 Specific VIPR Job Types with very high Transferable Skills (TS level 97) Valences.
These 16 very high TS Valence VIPR lists were then processed through MTSP using the MTSP2000
Transferable Skills (TS) Algorithm (Grimley, Williams, Hahn, & Dennis, 2000). The purpose was to
establish and rank order all possible Specific VIPR Job Type lists (N=12,775 each) in descending order by
TS Valence by VQ1 by SVP1 and in ascending order by McDOT Code, for the 16 lists. The final sort for
Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Job-based Personality Types was completed prior to
the removal of duplicates to reduce the 16 VIPR Sets of Job Types to a final N of 12,775 Specific Job Types,
across the 16 Independent, Mutually Exclusive, VIPR Job Types.
Put another way, after removal of initially identified duplicates, all Specific jobs were duplicated 16 times
each, with variable Transferable Skills (TS) Valence levels, relative to each of the 16 VIPR Sets of Job
Types. Then, the final 16, most appropriate Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) lists of
Job Types were constructed by retaining only those Specific Job Types with the highest possible TS Valence
across each set of 16 job duplicates. After eliminating the 15 other jobs with duplicate or lesser TS Valences
across the 16 VIPR lists, the goal of establishing the final 16 most appropriate, seemingly independent &
mutually exclusive, VIPR lists of Job Types was accomplished.
Design and Development of the MVQS VIPR Job-based Type Indicator: A CriterionReferenced, Paired Associates Jobs Typology Instrument
In designing the MVQS VIPR Job-based Type Indicator Instrument, it was decided that 108 sets of
optimally balanced, paired associate VIPR Job-based Specific Job Types would be required to assure
reasonable expectations of moderate to very high Test-Retest Reliability (i.e., in the Rxx=0.80-0.99 range).
Therefore, from each of the final 16 VIPR Job-based Personality Type Lists, 13-16 Specific Job Types with
TS Valences of 97 were selected for inclusion in the MVQS VIPR Job-based Type Indicator sets of
optimally balanced, paired associates (N=213).
The final N of 108 sets of optimally balanced, paired associates required that three additional Specific
VIPR Job Types from the VIPR INFJ Set of Job Types, with slightly lower TS Valences (two with TS
Valences of 94 and one with a TS Valance of 91), be incorporated. The addition of these three Specific
VIPR INFJ Job Types completed the list of 216 Specific VIPR Job Types (selected across all 16 VIPR Job
Types lists) required to finalize the 108 sets of optimally balanced, paired associates for the MVQS VIPR
Job-based Personality Type Indicator.
Following the development of 108 sets of optimally balanced, paired associates, the MVQS VIPR Jobbased Personality Type Indicator instrument was placed in an MS Excel Spreadsheet complete with
instructions and scoring formulas designed to yield an individualized, single-best VIPR Type for each
person completing the MVQS VIPR Job-based Personality Type Indicator. This instrument was then sent
via e-mail attachment to a number of Expert Vocational Practitioners for peer-review and field-testing.
Results
Face and Content Validity were established by Expert Vocational Practitioners to be in the very high
range for the paper and pencil version of the MVQS VIPR Job-based Personality Type Indicator during the
peer-review and field-testing phase.
Suggestions for improvements were solicited from Expert Vocational Practitioners completing peer-review
and field-testing of the Instrument. All recommendations from Expert Vocational Practitioners completing
peer-review and field-testing of the paper and pencil version of the instrument, as well as the programming
format suggestions for the MVQS VIPR Job-based Personality Type Indicator instrument to be included in
the MVQS2001 McPLOT Sub-Program were reviewed and considered.
The best suggestions were selected, incorporated and implemented in the final versions of both MVQS
VIPR Job-based Personality Type Indicator instruments. The paper and pencil version was printed for
distribution (See next 5 pages). Programming for the MVQS VIPR Job-based Personality Type Indicator
instrument to be included in the MVQS2001 McPLOT Sub-Program was initiated and completed.
The MVQS VIPR Job-Based Personality Type Indicator
MVQS Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Type Indicator
(A McCroskey 5th Ed Dictionary of Occupational Titles (McDOT) Paired-Associates, Criterion-Referenced Test)
© 2001 by Billy J. McCroskey, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved.
NAME:
DATE:
Instructions: Review each Pair of Jobs and Indicate your Preference by Placing a "1" in either the "E" or "I" box.
E TITLES
1 Teacher, Industrial Arts
2 Production Engineer
3 Machinist
4 Business-Enterprise Officer
E
5 Director, Labor Standards
6 Teacher, Secondary School
7 Zoo Veterinarian
8 Aerodynamicist
9 Field-Service Engineer
10 Cardiopulmonary Technologist, Chief
11 Special Procedures Technologist, CT
Scan
12 Radiologic Technologist
13 Nurse Anesthetist
14 Teacher, Adventure Education
15 Speech Pathologist
16 Biomedical Engineer
17 Tax Attorney
18 Lawyer
19 Electrical Engineer, Power System
20 Induction-Coordination Power Engineer
21 Mechanical-Design Engineer, Facilities
22 Optometrist
23 Dietitian, Teaching
24 Dietitian, Consultant
25 Teacher, Art
26 Musician, Instrumental
27 Manager, Advertising
E Score:
I TITLES
1 Plant Pathologist
2 Botanist
3 Forester
4 Supervisor, Transcribing
Operators
5 Jeweler
6 Jeweler Apprentice
7 Periodontist
8 Pediatric Dentist
9 Accountant, Tax
10 Electrical-Prospecting Engineer
11 Electrical Test Engineer
12 Electrical Engineer
13 Internist
14 Ophthalmologist
15 Family Practitioner
16 Animal Scientist
17 Airport Engineer
18 Hydraulic Engineer
19 Aquatic Biologist
20 Radiopharmacist
21 Statistician, Mathematical
22 Illustrator, Medical and Scientific
23 Acupuncturist
24 Sociologist
25 Occupational Therapist
26 Educational Specialist
27 Writer, Prose, Fiction and
Nonfiction
I Score:
I
MVQS Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Type Indicator
NAME:
DATE:
Instructions: Review each Pair of Jobs and Indicate your Preference by Placing a "1" in either the "S" or "N" box.
S TITLES
1 Documentation Engineer
2 Contractor
3 Industrial Engineer
S
4 Tool Planner
5 Production Planner
6 Economic Development Coordinator
7 Landscape Architect
8 Experimental Aircraft Mechanic
9 Supervisor, Personnel Clerks
10 Veterinarian, Laboratory Animal Care
11 Aeronautical Engineer
12 Aeronautical-Design Engineer
13 Radiologic Technologist, Chief
14 Special Procedures Technologist,
Angiogram
15 Echocardiograph Technician
16 Dentist
17 Quality Control Engineer
18 Management Analyst
19 Nurse Practitioner
20 Nurse Supervisor, Evening-or-Night
21 Nurse, School
22 Chiropractor
23 Electronics Technician
24 Athletic Trainer
25 Radiologist
26 Pediatrician
27 Proctologist
S Score:
N TITLES
1 Environmental Analyst
2 Reliability Engineer
3 Computer Systems Hardware
Analyst
4 Lawyer, Admiralty
5 Manager, Personnel
6 Director, Industrial Relations
7 Chemical Engineer
8 Protection Engineer
9 Illuminating Engineer
10 Materials Scientist
11 Irrigation Engineer
12 Sanitary Engineer
13 Physicist
14 Electro-Optical Engineer
15 Nematologist
16 Home Economist
17 Clergy Member
18 Dietitian, Clinical
19 Psychiatrist
20 Medical Physicist
21 Hearing Officer
22 Arranger
23 Faculty Member, College or
University
24 Composer
25 Consultant, Education
26 Broker-and-Market Operator,
Grain
27 Industrial Therapist
N Score:
N
MVQS Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Type Indicator
NAME:
DATE:
Instructions: Review each Pair of Jobs and Indicate your Preference by Placing a "1" in either the "T" or "F" box.
T TITLES
T
1 Manufacturing Engineer
2 Chef De Froid
3 Welder Apprentice, Arc
4 Welder, Arc
5 Machine Setter
6 Pharmaceutical Detailer
7 Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
Techo
8 Technologist, Cardiac Catheterization
9 Polysomnographic Technician
10 Endodontist
11 Pharmacist
12 Writer, Technical Publications
13 Electrolysis-and-Corrosion-Control
Engineer
14 Automobile Racer
15 Electronics Mechanic
16 Maintainability Engineer
17 Title Attorney
18 Lawyer, Criminal
19 Electrical-Design Engineer
20 Applications Engineer, Manufacturing
21 Power-Distribution Engineer
22 Architect
23 Poultry Scientist
24 Civil Engineer
25 Biologist
26 Physicist, Theoretical
27 Plant Engineer
T Score:
F TITLES
1 Physical Therapist
2 Painter
3 Landscape Gardener
4 Automobile Mechanic
5 Bookkeeper
6 General-Ledger Bookkeeper
7 Aeronautical Project Engineer
8 Aeronautical-Research Engineer
9 Stress Analyst
10 Nurse, Head
11 Nurse, Supervisor
12 Mohel
13 Urologist
14 Obstetrician
15 Physiatrist
16 Nurse, Instructor
17 Photojournalist
18 Sales-Promotion Representative
19 Illustrator
20 Patent Agent
21 Appeals Referee
22 Orchestrator
23 Psychologist, Chief
24 Clinical Therapist
25 Occupational Analyst
26 Supervisor, Education
27 Humorist
F Score:
F
MVQS Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Type Indicator
NAME:
DATE:
Instructions: Review each Pair of Jobs and Indicate your Preference by Placing a "1" in either the "J" or "P" box.
J TITLES
1 Time-Study Engineer
2 Factory Lay-Out Engineer
3 Real-Estate Agent
4 Director, Arts-and-Humanities Council
5 Director, Unemployment Insurance
6 Director, Consumer Affairs
7 Public-Health Dentist
8 Manager, Quality Control
9 Manager, Records Analysis
10 Nurse, General Duty
11 Nurse-Midwife
12 Nurse, Staff, Occupational Health
Nursing
13 Chemical-Test Engineer
14 Director, Media Marketing
15 District Attorney
16 Allergist-Immunologist
17 Cardiologist
18 Gynecologist
19 Railroad Engineer
20 Dairy Scientist
21 Transportation Engineer
22 Director of Institutional Research
23 Community Dietitian
24 Social Worker, School
25 Job Analyst
26 Playwright
27 Screen Writer
J Score:
J
P TITLES
1 Printmaker
2 Airframe-and-Power-Plant
Mechanic
3 Supervisor, Dairy Farm
4 Assembler and Tester,
Electronics
5 Typing Section Chief
6 Sample Maker I
7 Veterinarian
8 Nurse, Private Duty
9 Fashion Designer
10 Emergency Medical Technician
11 Ultrasound Technologist
12 Battalion Chief
13 Electrical-Research Engineer
14 Motorcycle Racer
15 Electronics-Mechanic Apprentice
16 Power-Transmission Engineer
17 Mechanical-Design Engineer,
Products
18 Mechanical Engineer
19 Chemist
20 Chemist, Food
21 Statistician, Applied
22 Doctor, Naturopathic
23 Graduate Assistant
24 Counselor, Nurses' Association
25 Planner, Program Services
26 Clinical Psychologist
27 Counselor
P Score:
P
MVQS-VIPR Type Indicator Results
NAME:
(E)xtroversion Score:
DATE:
(I)ntroversion Score:
(S)ensing Score:
I(N)tuiting Score:
(T)hinking Score:
(F)eeling Score:
(J)udgement Score:
MVQS-VIPR TYPE
(P)erception Score:
<-:Insert Highest Letter Scores from each above pair (e.g. INTJ).
Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations
Clearly, many decades of patience, research and development have begun to produce a fruitful realization of
Parson’s informal, yet intuitive, direction. Efforts must continue with the collection and synthesis of ongoing research into renewed development and refining of our tools, methods, procedures, theories and
standards for vocational practice.
1) Theories must be refined through research.
2) New tools for more efficiently and effectively matching workers with jobs must continue to
be developed and updated.
3) New hypotheses must be empirically tested through research on those tools.
4) The results of our studies must be published in peer-reviewed journals to keep our peers
abreast of mounting research evidence and the need to update our standards for vocational
practice.
As we increase our own understanding through scientific research:

Developing and refining our tools, methods, procedures, theories and standards for
vocational practice will become more routine, and

Providing credible evidence of the reliability and validity of our tools, methods, procedures,
theories and standards for vocational practice, to the courts and other interested parties, will
become more second nature.
Face and Content Validity were established by Expert Vocational Practitioners to be in the very high
range for the paper and pencil version of the MVQS VIPR Job-based Personality Type Indicator during the
peer-review and field-testing phase. Additional studies to more firmly establish expected moderate to high
level Test-Retest Reliability and Predictive Validity for both the paper and pencil and machine versions of
the MVQS VIPR Job-based Personality Type Indicator instruments are recommended. Studies are
currently in the research design phase and should be completed in the near future.
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allan, Ross. (1999). Connecting Personality Types With Careers and Jobs. US Dept. of the Interior:
http://www.doi.gov/octc/typescar.html.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 42 U.S.C.A. SS 12101 et. seq. (West, 1993).
Anderson, L. E. (1997). Chapter 5: Education, training, experience, and licensure/ certification: Evidence for the reliability and
validity of the measures. In O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume I, N. G. Peterson, M.D. Mumford, W.C. Borman, P. R.
Jeanneret, E. A. Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin eds. Utah Department of Workforce Services, 5-1 to 5-25.
Anderson, L. M. (1969). Longitudinal changes in level of work adjustment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Arad, S., Hanson, M. A. & Schneider, R. J. (1997). Chapter 8: Organizational context: Evidence for the reliability and validity of
the measures. In O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume II, N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret,
E. A. Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin eds. Utah Department of Workforce Services, 8-1 to 8-38.
Benjamin, D. M. (1995). Preparing to Testify. Experts Quarterly, Issue No. 1. Chestnut Hill, Mass: Author.
Bertram v. Wunning 417 S.W.2d. 120 (MO. App. 1967).
Bolton B. F. (ed.). (1976). Handbook of Measurement and Evaluation in Rehabilitation. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Borland International. (1994). Borland Paradox for Windows 5.0. Scotts Valley, CA: Borland International, Inc.
Borman, W. C. & Kubisiak, U. C. (1997). Chapter 11: Work Styles: Evidence for the reliability and validity of the measures. In
O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume II, N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A.
Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin eds. Utah Department of Workforce Services, 11-1 to 11-17.
Borman, W.C., Jeanneret, P. R., Kubisiak, U. C. & Hanson, M. A. (1997). Chapter 6: Generalized work activities: Evidence for
the reliability and validity of the measures. In O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume I, N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W.
C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A. Fleishman, & K. Y. Levin eds. UT Dept. of Workforce Svcs, 6-1 to 6-27.
Borow, H. (1964). An integral view of occupational theory and research. In: H. Borow (Ed.). Man in a World at Work. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Borow, H. (Ed.). (1964). Man In a World of Work. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Botterbusch, K. F. & Michael, N. (1985). Testing and test modification in vocational evaluation. Menomonie, WI: Materials
Development Center, University of Wisconsin-Stout.
Botterbusch, K. F. (1982). A Manual of DOT Related Codes. Menomonie, WI: Materials Development Center, University of
Wisconsin-Stout.
Botterbusch, K. F. (1983). A Comparison of Computerized Job Matching Systems (1st ed.). Menomonie, Wisconsin: University of
Wisconsin-Stout, Rehabilitation Institute, Materials Development Center.
Botterbusch, K. F. (1986). A Comparison of Computerized Job Matching Systems (2nd ed.). Menomonie, Wisconsin: University
of Wisconsin-Stout, Rehabilitation Institute, Materials Development Center.
Botterbusch, K. F. (1987). Vocational assessment and evaluation systems: A comparison. Menomonie, WI: University of
Wisconsin-Stout, Rehabilitation Institute, Materials Development Center.
Brau, Jean Louis, Helen Weaver and Allan Edmands (1980). Larousse Encyclopedia of Astrology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brown, C., McDaniel, R., Couch, R. & McClanahan, M. (1994). Vocational Evaluation Systems and Software: A Consumer’s
Guide. Menomonie, WI: Materials Development Center. 69-124.
Burge, M. J. (1978). Comparing 1977 Evaluations at Goodwill Industries of the Southern Piedmont, Inc., with VDAREs.
Unpublished Masters Research Project, Athens GA: University of Georgia.
Buros, O. K., (Ed.). (1938, 1941, 1949, 1953, 1959, 1965, 1972, 1978). Mental Measurements Yearbook, Editions 1-8. Lincoln,
NE: Buros Institute on Mental Measurement.
Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Canada Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1980) Standard Industrial Classification Codes for Canada. Ontario,
Canada, Govt. Printing Office.
Canada Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1996) Canada Wages by SIC CTI Industry: 1980-83, 84, 85, . . . 94.
Ontario, Canada, Govt. Printing Office (Electronic File Date: 2/29/96).
Christerson, B. B. (1997). COMPASS. Tucson, AZ: Valpar, Inc.
Colvin, C. R. (1972). The role of a vocational expert in the Social Security Administration's Bureau of Hearings and Appeals. In:
U.S. DHEW, SSA, BHA (SSA #72-10284), Forensic Psychology and Disability Adjudication: A Decade of Experience.
Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, pp. 197-198.
Costanza, E. P., Fleishman, E. A. & Marshall-Mies, J. C. (1997). Chapter 4: Knowledges: Evidence for the reliability and validity
of the measures. In O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume I, N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R.
Jeanneret, E. A. Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin eds. Utah Department of Workforce Services, 4-1 to 4-26.
Cronbach, L. J. (1960). Essentials of Psychological Testing, 2nd edition. New York: Harper & Row.
Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of Psychological Testing, 3rd edition. New York: Harper & Row.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (113 S. Ct. 2786, 1993).
Dawis, R. V. (1976). The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment. In Bolton (ed.) Handbook of Measurement and Evaluation in
Rehabilitation. Baltimore: University Park Press, 227-248
Dawis, R. V., England, G. W. & Lofquist, L. H. (1964). A Theory of Work Adjustment. Minnesota Studies in Vocational
Rehabilitation, No. XV. Industrial Relations Center, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Dawis, R. V., Lofquist, L. H. & Weiss, D. J. (1968). A Theory of Work Adjustment: A Revision. Minnesota Studies in Vocational
Rehabilitation, No. XXIII. Industrial Relations Center, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Dennis, K. L. & McCroskey, B. J. (1997). The Occupational Information Network (O*NET). Journal of Forensic Vocationology,
2(1), 1-29.
Dennis, K. L. & McCroskey, B. J. (1999). O*NET validity under Daubert. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 5(1), 49-74.
Dennis, K. L. & McCroskey, B. J. (2000). Predicting Earning Capacity in Indiana. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 6(1), 97106.
Dennis, K. L. & Tichauer, G. (1998). Replicating Vocational Quotient (VQ) Wage Earning Capacity Predictions in Nebraska.
Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 4(1), pp. 85-92.
Dennis, M. L. & Dennis, K. L. (1998). Job Search Software under Daubert. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 4(1), pp. 1-10.
Dennis, M. L. & Dennis, K. L. (1998). Job Search Software under Daubert: Will It Withstand Scrutiny as Part of Expert Opinion.
Journal of Forensic Vocational Assessment, 1(3), pp. 19-28.
Dennis, M. L. & Dennis, K. L. (1998). Replicating Vocational Quotient (VQ) Earning Capacity Predictions in Wisconsin. Journal
of Forensic Vocationology, 4(1), pp. 61-68.
Dennis, M. L., McCroskey, B. J. & Dennis, K. L. (1998). Work Release, Meaningful Employment and Reasonable Earning
Capacity. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 4(1), pp. 53-60.
Dillman, E. G. (1990). Earnings by Education: 1987. Economic Insights. (03/90). El Paso, TX: Author, pp. 1-4.
E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Inc. v. C. R. Robinson Et Al. (1995). No. 94-0843, 38, 852-861 Tex. S. Ct, 1995,
(excluded expert testimony from a Horticulturist, holding that Rule 702 requires expert testimony to be relevant and reliable,
and that the Horticulturist's testimony and opinions were not reliable).
Farr, J. M., Ludden, L. & Mangin, P. (1998). Appendix C, Phase I: Developing Homogeneous Occupations for O*NET. In: The
O*NET Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Indianapolis, IN: JIST Works, Inc., pp. 573-579.
Federal Civil Judicial Procedure and Rules. (1995). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company.
Federal Courts Study Committee. (1990). Report of the Federal Courts Study Committee 97. Washington DC: GPO.
Feldbaum, C. L. & McCroskey, B. J. (1995). Expert Testimony: Evolving Vocational and Rehabilitation Economic Technologies,
Federal Rules of Evidence and the Daubert Decision. Journal of Vocationology, 1(1), pp. 1-5.
Feldbaum, C. L. (1997). The Daubert Decision and Its Interaction with the Federal Rules. Journal of Forensic Vocational
Assessment, 1(1), pp. 9-73.
Field, T. F., McCroskey, B. J., Grimes, J. W. & Wattenbarger, W. E. (1978). A Comparison of Vocational Recommendations of
the RCEP Masters Students Receiving VDARE Training with those of Vocational Experts and Certified Rehabilitation
Counselors. Submitted to VEWAA Bulletin, November, 1978.
Fishback v. People, 851 P.2d 884, 889 (Colo. 1993).
Flanagan v. State, 625 So. 2d 827, 829-29 (Fla. 1993).
Fleishman, E. A., Costanza, D. P. & Marshall-Miles, J. C. (1997). Chapter 9: Abilities: Evidence for the reliability and validity of
the measures. In O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume II, N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret,
E. A. Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin eds. Utah Department of Workforce Services, 9-1 to 9-21.
Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 - 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95(1), 29-51.
Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 171-191.
Fredlund, M. C. (1997). Advocate Software: Personal Injury-Economist Series for Windows. Walnut Creek, CA.
Frye v. United States. (1923). 54 App. DC 46, 293 F. 1013.
Ghiselli, E. E. (1966). The Validity of Occupational Aptitude Tests. Wiley, New York.
Grimley, Williams, Hahn & Dennis. (2000a). Scientific Prediction of Transferable Skills. Journal of Forensic Vocationology Vol.
6(1), Fall, 2000, pp. 7-16.
Grimley, Williams, Hahn & Dennis. (2000b). A Scientific Approach to Transferable Skills. Journal of Forensic Vocational
Analysis. Vol. 3(1), pp. 47-54.
Hahn, S. J. & Wells-Moran, J. (1998). Washington State VQ-Wage Earning Capacity Predictive Validity Generalization. Journal
of Forensic Vocationology, 4(1), pp. 79-84.
Hahn, S. J. (1997). An Independent Replication of the McCroskey Vocational Quotient (VQ) as a Predictor of Earning Capacity.
Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 3(1), pp. 29-33.
Hahn, S. J., Larkin, S. & Dennis, K. L. (2000). Florida State McDOT 2000 VQ1-Wage Earning Capacity Predictive Validity
Generalization Follow-up Study. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 6(1), pp. (TBD).
Hahn, S. J., Larkin, S. & Williams, J. M. (2000). Florida State McDOT 1998 VQ-Wage Earning Capacity Predictive Validity
Generalization. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 6(1), pp. (TBD).
Heaton, R. K., Marcotte, T. D., White, D. A., Ross, D., Meredith, K., Taylor, M. J., Kaplan, R. & Grant, I. (1996). Nature and
Vocational Significance of Neuropsychological Impairment Associated with HIV Infection. The Clinical Neuropsychologist,
10(1), pp. 1-14.
Iacobelli Construction, Inc. v. County of Monroe, 32 F.3d 19, 25 (2d Cir. 1994) (concluding that Daubert addressed only junk
science cases and is inapplicable to construction litigation).
Janikowski, T. P., Bordieri, J. E. & Musgrave, J. R. (1990). Construct Validation of the Academic Achievement and General
Educational Development Subtests of the Microcomputer Evaluation Screening and Assessment (MESA). Vocational
Evaluation and Work Adjustment Bulletin, Spring, 1990, pp. 11-16.
JOBQUEST. (1996). JOBQUEST Data References and Updates. Spokane, WA: JobQuest.
Jung, C.G. (1971). Psychological Types. (A Revision by R.F.C. Hull of the Translation by H.G. Baynes). Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Keirsey, David M. (1998). Please Understand Me II: Temperament Character Intelligence. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis
Book Company.
Keirsey, David M. (2000). Keirsey Temperament Distributions: Distribution of Types taking the Temperament Sorter and the
Character Sorter on Keirsey Temperament Web Site. http://www.keirsey.com/ DLU: 12/15/2000.
Keirsey, David, and Marilyn Bates (1978). Please Understand Me: Character and Temperament Types. 3rd ed. Del Mar:
Prometheus Nemesis.
Kelly, Dave. (1999). Correspondence of Five Personality Typologies. http://www.geocities.com/ptypes/.
Knowles, P. S. (1978). The Utilization of Vocational History in the Vocational Evaluation Process. Unpublished Masters
Research Project, Athens GA: University of Georgia.
Kumho Tire Co., Ltd., et al v Carmichael et. al, No., 97-1709, 131 F.3d 1433, reversed, S. Ct. (1999).
Lappe v. American Honda Motor Co., 857 F. Supp. 222, 228 (N.D.N.Y. 1994) (admitting expert testimony in products liability
action because Daubert only prescribes judicial intervention for expert testimony approaching the outer boundaries of
traditional scientific and technological knowledge).
Loch, C. (1994). Compute-A-Match: Manual of Research and Norm Studies. Pleasantville, NY: Progressive Evaluation Systems.
Lofquist, L. H. & Dawis, R. V. (1969). Adjustment to Work: A Psychological View of Man's Problems in a Work-oriented
Society. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.
LRP Publications. (1993, 1994, 1995). The Testifying Expert. Horsham PA: LRP Publications.
Matarazzo, J. D. (1972). Wechsler's measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence (5th ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Mayer L. L. (1998). Admissibility of Vocational Expert Testimony Post-Daubert: A Statistical Validation of the Vocational
Quotient as a Predictor of Labor Market Entry Wage. Journal of Forensic Vocational Assessment. Vol. 1(3), pp. 3-17.
Mayer, L. L. (1995). Effects of the sources of evaluative data upon wage of Status 26 rehabilitative clients. (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI
Microfilm, No. 0526513). Walden University, 1994/1995, Minneapolis, MN.
McCroskey, B. J. & Dennis, K. L. (1999). O*Net Issues for Rehabilitation Economists. The Earnings Analyst Journal of the
American Rehabilitation Economics Association, Vol. 2(1), pp. 23-34.
McCroskey, B. J. & Dennis, K. L. (2001). Emotional Trauma: Its Impact on Vocational Analysis. An article submitted
simultaneously for broader Peer-Review and Publication consideration to: The ABVE Journal of Forensic Vocational
Analysis and the Journal of Forensic Vocationology (Winter, 2001).
McCroskey, B. J. & Feldbaum C. L. (1995). Statistical Basics Revisited for Vocational Evaluation and Earning Capacity Analysis
under Daubert: A Need for Forensic Standards. Journal of Vocationology, Vol. 1(1), pp. 6-8.
McCroskey, B. J. & Hahn, S. J. (1995). The Validity of the Vocational Quotient as a predictor of Calendar Year (CY) 1994
starting wages in Minnesota: Study #1. Journal of Vocationology, 1(1), pp. 9-13.
McCroskey, B. J. & Hahn, S. J. (1997). The Vocational Quotient (VQ) as a Predictor of Earning Capacity. Journal of Forensic
Vocationology, 3(1), pp. 1-27.
McCroskey, B. J. & Hahn, S. J. (1997, 1998) Linear Regression Analysis of United States Trends in Average Annual Pay: 1984
to 2001. Unpublished Research. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc.
McCroskey, B. J. & Hahn, S. J. (1998). The Vocational Quotient (VQ) as a Predictor of Earning Capacity: 1996-97 CriterionReferenced Validity Follow-up Studies. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 4(1), pp. 11-52.
McCroskey, B. J. & Lowe, J. K. (1985). Linear Regression Analysis of the Relationship between Job VQs and Job Wages in the
US Economy: Using Job VQs to Predict Job Values. Unpublished Research, Authors.
McCroskey, B. J. & Lowe, J. K. (1986). How Much Is Your Job Worth? Limited Edition. Minneapolis: Money Pot.
McCroskey, B. J. & Lowe, J. K. (1987) Linear Regression Analysis of the Relationship Between Job VQs and Job Wages in the
US Economy: Using Job VQs to Predict Job Values. Unpublished Research, Authors.
McCroskey, B. J. & Lowe, J. K. (1987). How Much Is Your Job Worth? Revised Edition. Minneapolis: Money Pot.
McCroskey, B. J. & Perkins, E. (1981). Manual for the McCroskey Vocational Quotient System, pp. 28-31, 37, 63.
McCroskey, B. J. & Wattenbarger, W. E. (1977). The Vocational Diagnosis and Assessment of Residual Employability (VDARE)
Process Worksheet. Athens, GA: Authors.
McCroskey, B. J. (1979). The Effects Of Source Of Evaluative Data, Severity Of Client Disability, And Client Age Group On
The Degree To Which Clients’ Residual Employability Profiles Match Their Actual Employment Outcome Profiles.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
McCroskey, B. J. (1979, 1980). Multiple Regression and Frequencies Data on 1977 USDOL Job Analysis Data. Mississippi
State, MS: Unpublished Post-Doctoral Research, Author.
McCroskey, B. J. (1979a, 1979b, 1979c, 1979d). The Encyclopedia of Job Requirements (EOJR, Volumes 1-4). Mississippi State:
Mississippi State University Computer Science Center.
McCroskey, B. J. (1980). Multiple Regression and Frequencies Data on 1977 USDOL Job Analysis Data. Mississippi State, MS:
Unpublished Post-Doctoral Research, Author.
McCroskey, B. J. (1980, 1981, 1983, 1986, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000). The Encyclopedia of Job
Requirements (Volumes 1-4). Reprinted, (1981); Reprinted, (1983, 1986). Revised and reprinted, (1990, 1992). EOJR
Volume 1, revised and electronically reprinted within the McDOT 6.1–7.1 Program Series, (1994, 1995). Revised and
electronically stored in McDOT 7.11R – 2000 Program Series, Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc. (1996, 1997, 1998
& 2000, respectively).
McCroskey, B. J. (1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989 & 1990). Manuals for the Datamaster I, II, III, IV & 4p2g Programs
(Microcomputer-Assisted Job-Person Matching System Specifically Designed for Use with the McCroskey Vocational
Quotient System). Minneapolis, Minnesota: Vocationology, Inc. Program Series, Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc.
(1996, 1997, 1998 & 2000, respectively).
McCroskey, B. J. (1982,1983, 1985, 1987, 1989 & 1990). The MVQS Datamaster Job-Person Matching System (Versions 1.0,
2.0, 3.0, 3.0+, 4.0+ and 4p2g). Minneapolis & St. Paul, MN: Vocationology, Inc.
McCroskey, B. J. (1991, 1992a, 1992b, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 & 2000). The McCroskey TestPlot Program (McPLOT) Vers. 6.0
and 6.1, (1991). Revised to Vers. 6.2, (1/92). Upgraded to Vers. 7.0 with McDOT 7.0 and McPLOT 7.0 Program
Components, (4/92). Revised to Vers. 7.11, (4/13/95). Revised and upgraded to Vers. 7.11R, (6/96). Revised and upgraded to
Version 8.0, 8.0R & 2000, Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc., (06/97, 10/15/98 & 01/01/2000, respectively).
McCroskey, B. J. (1991, 1992a, 1992b, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2000). The McCroskey Dictionary of Occupational Titles (McDOT).
Vers. 6.0 and 6.1, (1991). Revised to Vers. 6.2, (1/92). Upgraded to Vers. 7.0, (4/92). Revised to Vers. 7.11, (4/95). Revised
and upgraded to Vers. 8.0, 8.0R & 2000, Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc., (6/97, 10/15/98 & 01/01/2000,
respectively).
McCroskey, B. J. (1991, 1992a, 1992b, 1995a, 1995b, 1996, 1997, 1998 & 2000). The McCroskey Transferable Skills Program
(MTSP) Versions 6.0 and 6.1, (1991). Revised to Vers. 6.2, (1/92). Upgraded to Vers. 7.0, (4/92). Revised to Vers. 7.11,
(4/95). Revised to Vers. 7.11, (8/95). Revised to Vers. 7.11R, (7/96). Revised and upgraded to Vers. 8.0, (6/97). Revised to
Vers. 8.0R, Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc., (01/01/98). Revised to Vers. 2000, Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology,
Inc., (01/01/2000).
McCroskey, B. J. (1992). The Validity of the Vocational Quotient as a Predictor of Starting Wage Earning Capacity. The
Vocationologist, 1(1), pp. 23-24.
McCroskey, B. J. (1995). Emergence of Standards in Vocational Technology. The Vocationologist, 2(1), pp. 4-12.
McCroskey, B. J. (1995). McDOT, McPLOT and MTSP 7.0 Arrive for 1995. The Vocationologist, 2(1), pp. 1-4.
McCroskey, B. J. (1995). The Validity of the Vocational Quotient as a Predictor of Pre-and Post-Injury Earning Capacity. White
paper presented at the American Rehabilitation Economic Association, Atlanta, GA, 5/7/95.
McCroskey, B. J. (1995). White Paper Re: MN CY 1994 VQ-Wage data presented at the American Rehabilitation Economics
Association National Conference in Atlanta, GA, Fall, 1995.
McCroskey, B. J. (1996). 1977-1987 SIC Code to 9-Digit McDOT Code Crosswalk Database. Brooklyn Park, MN:
Vocationology, Inc.
McCroskey, B. J. (1996a). The ECLRBOOK. Minneapolis, MN: Vocationology, Inc.
McCroskey, B. J. (1996b). The SIC CODEBOOK: MTSP 7.11R SIC CODE Links To US Yellow Page Business/Industry
Headings. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc.
McCroskey, B. J. (1997). The McCroskey Dictionary of Occupational Titles Program (McDOT). Version 8.0: Mini-Manual and
Quick Start Guide. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc.
McCroskey, B. J. (1997). The McPLOT 8.0 Program Mini-Manual and Quick Start Guide. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology,
Inc.
McCroskey, B. J. (1997). The MTSP 8.0 Mini-Manual for the Full and Demo Versions of the McCroskey Transferable Skills
Program (MTSP) Version 8.0. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc.
McCroskey, B. J. (1997a) The 1996-1998 ECLRBOOK. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc. Revised (11/27/97) to The
Revised 1996-1998 ECLRBOOK. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc.
McCroskey, B. J. (1997b). The McCroskey Dictionary of Occupational Titles Program (McDOT). Version 8.0: Mini-Manual and
Quick Start Guide. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc.
McCroskey, B. J. (1997c). The McPLOT 8.0 Program Mini-Manual and Quick Start Guide. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology,
Inc.
McCroskey, B. J. (1997d). The MTSP 8.0 Mini-Manual for the Full and Demo Versions of the McCroskey Transferable Skills
Program (MTSP) Version 8.0. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc.
McCroskey, B. J. (1998) The 1998-2000 ECLRBOOK. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc.
McCroskey, B. J. (1998). The MTSP 8.0R Mini-Manual for the Full and Demo Versions of the McCroskey Transferable Skills
Program Version 8.0R. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc.
McCroskey, B. J. (2001). Classification of 12,775 McDOT Jobs into 16 MVQS Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer
(VIPR) Types with Jung-based Personality Type Correspondents Cross-Walk. Electronically published in the McCroskey 5th
Ed. Dictionary of Occupational Titles - Extended Data Set Edition. Brooklyn Park, MN: Vocationology, Inc.
McCroskey, B. J., Bohlke, D. & Streater, S. E. (1995). Re-calibrated Earning Capacity Link Relatives (ECLRs) For the MTSP
7.11R Program: Study #4. Journal of Vocationology, 1(1), pp. 36-45 & pp. 56-63.
McCroskey, B. J., Dennis, M. L. & Dennis, K. L. (1998). Geographic Location and the Vocational Quotient (VQ) Prediction of
Earning Capacity. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, 4(1), pp. 69-78.
McCroskey, B. J., Feldbaum C. L., Dennis, K. L. & Hahn, S. J. (1998). Statistical Foundations for Human Services Assessment in
Light of the Daubert Decision. Journal of Forensic Vocationology, Vol. 4(1), pp. 93-100.
McCroskey, B. J., Hahn, S. J., Dennis, K. L. & Streater, Scott E. (1995). VQ as a Predictor of FY 1994 Wisconsin Starting
Wages: Study #3. Journal of Vocationology, 1(1), pp. 26-27, 35.
McCroskey, B. J., Hahn, S. J., Lowe, J. K. & Dennis, K. L. (2001). The McCroskey Vocational Quotient System (MVQS)
Vocational Interest and Personality Reinforcer (VIPR) Job-based Personality Type Indicator and MTSP Jobs-Based
Vocational Interest Personality Types Crosswalk to Jung People-Based Personality Types. An article submitted
simultaneously for broader Peer-Review and Publication consideration to: The ABVE Journal of Forensic Vocational
Analysis and the Journal of Forensic Vocationology (Winter, 2001).
McCroskey, B. J., Hahn, S. J., Lowe, J. K. & Dennis, K. L. (2001). The McCroskey Vocational Quotient System (MVQS) Theory
of Transferable Skills: Revised, Extended and Updated for the 21 st Century. An article submitted simultaneously for broader
Peer-Review and Publication consideration to: The ABVE Journal of Forensic Vocational Analysis and the Journal of
Forensic Vocationology (Winter, 2001).
McCroskey, B. J., Male, R. & Frank, D. (1995). A Curvilinear Approach for Estimating Present Value Benefits-to-Pay Ratios
from US Income Trends 1959-91: Study #5. Journal of Vocationology, 1(1), pp. 46-49.
McCroskey, B. J., Smolarski, R., & Haskins, R. D. (1995). Three-Way Inter-Rater Reliability Using MVQS McDOT, McPLOT &
MTSP Computerized Job-Person Matching Program Components: Parts 1 & 2. Journal of Vocationology. 1(1), pp. 67-68.
McCroskey, B. J., Streater, S. E., Timming, R. C., Wattenbarger, W. & Lowe, J. K. (1989, 1991a, 1991b, 1992). Job-Person
Matching Inputs from the Portable Assessment System-1, Simulated Work Environment Ability Tester: Safety Aspects,
Content, and Construct Validity Monograph. Minneapolis, MN: Vocationology, Inc. Reprinted 1991, in: The American
Journal of Physical Therapy, pp. 30-76. Reprinted 1991, in: The Vocational Expert, Vol. 8(1), pp. 5-10. Reprinted 1992, in:
The American Board of Vocational Experts Monograph, pp. 40-86.
McCroskey, B. J., Wattenbarger, W. E., Field T. & Sink, J. (1977). The Vocational Diagnosis and Assessment of Residual
Employability (VDARE) Process Worksheet. Athens, GA: Authors.
McCroskey, B. J., Wattenbarger, W., Field, T. F. & Sink, J. M. (1977, 1979). The Vocational Diagnosis and Assessment of
Residual Employability Handbook. Athens, Ga.: Authors. Reprinted in the VDARE Training Manual, Roswell, GA: VDARE
Services Bureau, 1979.
McCroskey, B. J.; Streater, S. E.; Wattenbarger, W. E.; Feldbaum, C. L. & Dennis, K. L. (1997). Analyzing employability using
worker trait factors: Past, present and future. The Journal of Forensic Vocational Assessment, 1(1), pp. 7-39.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two, or some limits on our capacity to process information.
Psychological Review, 63(2), 555-564.
Millon, Theodore, and Roger Davis (1996). Disorders of Personality: DSM-IV and Beyond. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
Minnesota Department of Economic Security. (1996). Minnesota Calendar Year (CY) 1996 (01/01/96-12/31/96) Job Service
Work Orders 9-Digit DOT Coded Position Openings and Wage Offers Data by County. Saint Paul, MN: Office of Research
and Statistical Analysis.
Minnesota Department of Economic Security. (1997). Minnesota Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 (09/01/96-08/31/97) Job Service Work
Orders 9-Digit DOT Coded Position Openings and Wage Offers Data by County. Saint Paul, MN: Office of Research and
Statistical Analysis.
Mumford, M. D. & Peterson, N. G. (1995). Chapter 3: Skills. In Development of Prototype Occupational Information Network
(O*NET) Content Model by Peterson, N. G.; Mumford, M. D.; Borman, W. C.; Jeanneret, P. R. & Fleishman, E. A. eds. UT
Dept. of Workforce Svcs, 3-8, 3-59.
Mumford, M. D., Peterson, N. G. & Childs, R. A. (1997). Chapter 3: Basic and cross-functional skills: Evidence for the reliability
and validity of the measures. In O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume I, N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman,
P. R. Jeanneret, E. A. Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin eds. Utah Department of Workforce Services, 3-1 to 3-34.
Oldham, John M., and Lois B. Morris (1995). The New Personality Self-Portrait: Why You Think, Work, Love, and Act the Way
You Do. Rev. ed. New York: Bantam.
Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation No., 92-1995 (3rd Cir, 8/31/94).
Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a Vocation. (1st ed.); Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
People v. Leahy, 882 P.2d 321, 331 (Cal. 1994).
People v. Wesley, 633 N.E.2d 451, 456 (NY Ct. App. 1994).
Peterson, N. G, Mumford, M. D. Levin, K. Y., Green, J. & Waksberg, J. (1997). Chapter 2: Research method: Development and
field-testing the content model.. In O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume II, N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C.
Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A. Fleishman, & K. Y. Levin eds. UT Dept of Workforce Svcs, 2-1 to 2-51.
Psychological Corporation. (1974). Test Service Bulletin Number 48. Chart Comparing Various Test Scores and Their
Correspondence to Each Other [Under the Normal or Bell Curve]. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. (2000) Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center.
Reinhardt, B. (1978). A Correlation Study between Jobs Recommended for Clients and Jobs Actually Held by the Clients.
Unpublished Masters Research Project, Athens GA: University of Georgia.
Riso, Don Richard, and Russ Hudson (1996). Personality Types: Using the Enneagram for Self-discovery. Rev. ed. New York:
Houghton.
Ross, D. R. (1990). An Early Intervention Assessment Model for the Vocational Rehabilitation of Social Security Disability
Benefit Applicants. Social Security Administration R & D Project (Grant No.: 13-P-10017-9-02).
Rubinfeld, D.L. (1994). Reference guide on multiple regression. In: Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. (1994). New York:
Federal Judicial Center & Carnegie Corporation of New York, 417-469.
Sager, C. E. (1997). Chapter 10: Occupational interests and values: Evidence for the reliability and validity of the measures. In
O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume II, N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A.
Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin eds. Utah Department of Workforce Services, 10-1 to 10-31.
Schuh, A. J. (1967). The Predictability of employee tenure: A review of the literature. Pers. Psych. 20:133-152.
Shahnasarian, M. and Lassiter, D. (2002). Attorney perceptions of vocational evaluation methodologies. The Rehabilitation
Professional 10(1), pp. 38-43.
Shartle, C. L. (1964). Occupations, workers, and classification systems. In: H. Borow (Ed.). Man in a World at Work. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co.
Stern, P. (1994). Science in the Courtroom: From the Frye-Pan to the Fire. Violence Update, Vol. 4(12).
Streater, S. E. (1987). A Comparative Analysis of Subtest Results: the 1978 Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) Versus the
1984 Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised (WRAT-R). Unpublished Dissertation. American College of Vocational Experts,
Nashville, TN.
Streater, S. E. (2000). People Who Don't Count Won't Count. The Vocational Expert, 17(1), [Middle Insert].
Strong, M. H., Jeanneret, P. R., McPhail, S. M. & Blakley, B. R. (1997). Chapter 7: Generalized work activities: Evidence for the
reliability and validity of the measures. In: O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume II, N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C.
Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A. Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin eds. Utah Department of Workforce Services, 7-1 to 7-32.
Sparks v Consolidated Rail Corporation No. 94-CV-1917 (E.D. PA. 1995).
Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests and Manuals-Revised. (1993). American Psychological Association.
State v Carter, 524 N.W.2d No. S-93-777 (NE, l994).
State v Cauthron, 846 P.2d 502, 505 (Wash. 1993).
State v. Alt, 504 N.W.2d 38, 45-46 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993)
State v. Bible, 858 P.2d 1152, 1183 (Ariz. 1993)
StatSoft, Inc. (1992). Complete Statistical System: STATISTICA (CSS/3), Addendum, Release 3.1. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft, Inc.
StatSoft, Inc. (1995). STATISTICA for Windows [Computer program manual]. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft, Inc., 2300 East 14th Street,
Tulsa, OK, 74104-4442, (918) 749-1119, fax: (918) 749-2217, e-mail: info@statsoft.com, WEB: http://www.statsoft.com.
Stern, P. (1994). Science in the Courtroom: From the Frye-Pan to the Fire. Violence Update, Vol. 4(12).
Stoelting, C. (1990). A study of the construct validity of the MESA. Vocational Evaluation and Work Adjustment Bulletin, 23(3),
Fall, 1990, pp. 85-91.
Streater, S. E. (1987). A Comparative Analysis of Subtest Results: the 1978 Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) Versus the
1984 Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised (WRAT-R). Unpublished Dissertation. American College of Vocational
Experts, Nashville, TN.
Strong, M. H., Jeanneret, P. R., McPhail, S. M. & Blakley, B. R. (1997). Chapter 7: Generalized work activities: Evidence for the
reliability and validity of the measures. In O*NET Final Technical Report, Volume II, N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C.
Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A. Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin eds. Utah Department of Workforce Services, 7-1 to 7-32.
Table B-22. (1992). National Income by type of income, 1959-91. Economic Report of the President. (Transmitted to the
Congress, Feb. 1992). Washington, DC: GPO. Reprinted (1995): Journal of Vocationology 1(1), p. 47.
Taylor, K. E., & Weiss, D. J. (1972) Prediction of individual job termination from measured job satisfaction and biographical
data. J. Vocat. Behav. 2:123-132.
Teal, R. A. (1978). Comparison of the VDARE Technique with the Hester Evaluation System. Unpublished Masters Research
Project, Athens GA: University of Georgia.
The Testifying Expert. LRP Publications, Horsham PA., l993-95.
Thorndike, R. L. & Hagen, E. (1969). Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and Education, 3rd Edition. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, p. 173.
US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of the Census. (1987). Per Capita Income In Current &
1987 Dollars. News. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of the Census. (1993). Table B-28 Total And Per Capita
Disposable Personal Income And Personal Consumption Expenditures In Current And 1987 Dollars, 1959 - 1993.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of the Census. (1992). County Business Patterns: US
National and Sub-National Wage Earnings Data by two-, three-, and four-digit levels of the Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) System. Washington, DC, US Govt. Printing Office. (VI updated for wage inflation from 1993 - 1998).
US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of the Census. (1972). Standard Industrial
Classification Codes. Washington, DC, US Govt. Printing Office. Revised, 1977. Revised, 1987.
US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. (1987, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994,
1995, 1996 and 1997). Selected Average Annual Pay Tables: 1984-2001. And, Appendix III: Limitations of Data. In:
Statistical Abstract(s) of the United States. Washington, DC: Govt. Printing Office.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1939a). Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Vol. I). Washington, DC:
US Government Printing Office.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1939b). Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Vol. II). Washington, DC:
US Government Printing Office.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1949a). Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Vol. I, 2nd ed.).
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1949b). Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Vol. II, 2nd ed.).
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1956, 1961). Estimates of Worker Trait Requirements for 4,000 Jobs
as Defined in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles: An Alphabetical Index. Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1965a). Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Vol. I, 3rd ed.).
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1965b). Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Vol. II, 3rd ed.).
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1966). A Supplement for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (3rd
ed.). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1968). Supplement 2 for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (3rd
ed.). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1972). Handbook For Analyzing Jobs (Revised edition). Washington,
DC: US Government Printing Office. Reprinted, Menomonie, WI: Materials Development Center, University of WisconsinStout, (1976). Re-revised & Reprinted, Washington, DC US Government Printing Office, (1991).
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1977). Dictionary Of Occupational Titles (Vol. I, 4th ed.).
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1991a). Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Vols. I, 4th ed. Rev.).
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. (1991b). Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Vols. II, 4th ed. Rev.).
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1990). Occupational Outlook Handbook 1990-91 Edition Washington, DC,
US Government Printing Office.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1992). Occupational Outlook Handbook 1992-93 Edition Washington, DC,
US Government Printing Office.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1994). Occupational Outlook Handbook 1994-95 Edition Washington, DC,
US Government Printing Office.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1996). Occupational Outlook Handbook 1996-97 Edition Washington, DC,
US Government Printing Office.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1998). Occupational Outlook Handbook 1998-99 Edition Washington, DC,
US Government Printing Office.
US Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (US DOLETA), (1998). O*NET The Occupational
Information Network Data Dictionary, Release 1.0. Washington D.C.: US GPO.
US Department of Labor, US Employment Service. (1979). Guide for Occupational Exploration. Washington, DC, US
Government Printing Office.
US Department of Labor. (1970a). Manual for the USES General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB). Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office.
US Department of Labor. (1970b). Manual for the USES Non-Reading Aptitude Test Battery (NATB). Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office.
US Department of Labor. (1982). A Guide to Job Analysis. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
US Department of Labor. Bureau of Employment Security. (1982). Supplement 1 for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (4th
ed.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
US Department of Labor. Bureau of Employment Security. (1986). Supplement 2 for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (4th
ed.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
US v Starzecpyzel No. 93 CR. 553 (LMM), ( S.D.N.Y., 4/3/95).
Vadala v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 44 F.3d 36, 39 (1st Cir. 1995 holding that Daubert is limited to cases involving scientific law and
not accidents).
War Manpower Commission, Bureau of Manpower Utilization. (1944). Dictionary of Occupational Titles, Part IV: Entry
occupational classification. Washington, DC: US GPO.
War Manpower Commission, US Employment Service. (1943, 1945). Selective Placement for the Handicapped (Rev. ed.).
Washington, DC: US GPO.
Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58,
236.
Wattenbarger W. E. (1981). A Comparison of the Transferable of Skills Analysis of Residual Employability Using the Social
Security Administration’s Grid System and the VDARE Process. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Georgia,
Athens.
Wattenbarger W. E., Braswell, S., Dennis, H. & McCroskey, B. J. (1992) Three Employability Indices For Experimental And
Programmatic Analysis In Rehabilitation. The Vocationologist, 1(1). Minneapolis, MN: Vocationology, Inc., pp. 2-11.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., Lofquist, L. H. and England, G. W. (1966). Instrumentation for the theory of work adjustment.
Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, No. XXI. Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
West Law Books. (1993). Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 42 U.S.C.A. SS 12101 et. seq.
Williams, J. M. (1998). Transferability of Skills Methodologies Used in Computerized Job Matching Systems: Sufficient or
Insufficient Control of Methodologically Induced Error Variance? Journal of Forensic Vocational Assessment, 1(3), pp. 2941.
Wright, J. W. (1984). The American Almanac of Jobs and Salaries. New York, NY: Avon Books.