What’s Up DOT?
IARP Occupational Database Committee
IARP Forensic Conference
Hyatt Regency Bonaventure
Weston, Florida
October 31, 2008
Scope of Project



IODC → formed spring 2007
Purpose:
• Identify replacement of DOT
Focus:
• research past efforts to update DOT
• current uses of DOT & O*NET
• identify & evaluate other occupational
databases
• develop support to update/replace DOT
Scope of Project




Identified two occupational databases: eDOT, a
product of Economic Research Institute;
McDOT, a product of Vocationology, Inc.
Third database, based on the Common Metric
Questionnaire (CMQ) may be ready in few years
Arranged to have training and use of these
databases for study purposes.
First, needed to learn more about DOT
History of the DOT



Following Civil War, U.S. and Census Bureau
began to classify occupations
First occupational dictionary: 1927, A Dictionary
of Occupational Terms, Great Britain Ministry of
Labour
Wagner Peyser Act, 1933: United States
Employment Service (USES)-- match workers
with jobs.
History of the DOT






Work on the DOT began around the same time;
1st Edition 1939
Subsequent editions published 1949, 1965, 1977
Supplements came out 1982, ’86, ’91
20 new occupations added in 1998
Intended purpose: to assist USES in placing
workers in jobs.
1st Edition: skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled
History of the DOT
 1965 edition: worker traits, worker functions



(Data, People, Things), Occupational Group
Arrangements
1977 edition: ~75,000 job analyses; 2,100+ new
occupations; eliminated gender bias in job titles
and descriptions; included detailed worker
characteristics (SCO)
1986 ed. added 761 new occupations
1991 added 844, deleted 208; added GOE codes,
GED, SVP, DLU
History of the DOT

Each definition includes: code, title, industry
designation, alternate titles, body of definition,
undefined related titles, and definition trailer
(GOE, strength, GED-RML, SVP, DLU)

Basic concepts described in the DOT
occupational definitions: element, task, position,
job, and occupation.
History of the DOT

Major elements of an occupation:
• What the worker does (data, people, things)
• What gets done (work fields-WF)
• Skill level to perform this work (SVP)
• End product (materials, products, subject
matter and services-MPSMS)
History of the DOT

DOT → 4 classification systems:
•
•
•
•
by job content (OGA)
by worker function (DPT)
by industry affiliation (Industry Designation)
alphabetically by title
History of the DOT



Job analysis → basis of the DOT
National Research Council (1999) defines
occupational [job] analysis: "the tools and
methods used to describe and label work,
positions, jobs and occupations"
DOT defines an occupation as: “a collective
description of individual jobs performed, with
minor variations, in many establishments”
History of the DOT




The Handbook for Analyzing Jobs → job
analysis methodology used in creation of DOT.
HAJ first published in 1944; 4th Edition in 1991
(RHAJ).
1972 Edition published halfway through
completion of 1977 DOT.
Two primary formats in job analysis: workoriented—what gets done; and workeroriented—what the worker does. HAJ/RHAJ
uses both formats
History of the DOT



The Selected Characteristics of Occupations
Defined in the Revised Dictionary of
Occupational Titles (1993)
1st edition 1966, updates in 1968, 1981, and
1993.
Includes DOT titles arranged by: GOE; SVP;
strength; physical demands; environmental
conditions; index of titles with DOT codes;
definitions of the worker traits and functions
History of the DOT

Positive factors of the DOT:
• use of skilled job analysts
• task level descriptions
• foundation built upon data people things
• Worker traits, characteristics
• Useful for TSA: MPSMS, WF, SVP
• Attempt to cover national economy
• Depth of information
Development of the DOT




Sample for DOT: all jobs in the US economy
County Business Patterns/Thomas Registry →
used to identify # establishments in each
industry.
Industries assigned to one of 11 field centers →
average 42 industries/field center
“any industry” designation given to one field
office
Development of the DOT





Each analyst identified which establishments to
contact
Attempt to include one small, one medium and
one large size establishment for each industry,
and to focus on new and emerging occupations.
No clear supervision during process.
Appeared primary criteria for selecting
establishment → proximity to field office
Employers: right of refusal; no incentives
Development of the DOT
 Employers controlled which jobs were analyzed,




and which employees were chosen for analysis.
Analyst chose which jobs to observe.
If job analyzed for the 3rd Edition, may complete
abbreviated analysis or none at all.
If another analyst had recently completed a
similar analysis, none would be done.
Observe 1-2 workers per job.
Development of the DOT



Variety methods to record data: HAJ format;
abbreviated format; or simple notes.
Analysts not allowed to bring in tools or
equipment to measure certain aspects of jobs—
estimation and observation only.
Methods for rating worker traits were vague—
particularly for aptitudes, temperaments and
interests.
Updates of the DOT

Much time has passed since any onsite job
analyses of DOT occupations
Date last analyzed
1977 and previous
1978
1979-1982
1984-1988
1989-1991
1993
N
%
Age
10,288
355
520
1,187
80.6
2.8
4.1
9.3
30 years
30 years
>25 years
>20 years
390
20
3.1
0.2
>15 years
15 years
How the DOT is used



Basis for transferable skills analysis
Primary uses: career & voc counseling,
SSD
Secondary uses: library reference,
personnel management, employee
placement, govt. uses, research, others
O*NET




Outgrowth of the Advisory Panel on the DOT
(APDOT) from the early 1990s
Dept. of Labor “replacement” for the DOT
Skills-based database rather than task-based
dictionary
Preliminary version released Dec. 1997 with first
version (O*NET 98) out Dec. 1998
O*NET





Utilized SOC coding rather than DOT
Current version is O*NET 13
The 12, 761 DOT occupations have been
aggregated/collapsed to 812 groups
Composite information from many jobs; not
intended to describe a particular job
Uses mean data rather than mode used by DOT
Position Analysis
Questionnaire (PAQ)



PAQ’s business: create useful work and labor
economic reports
Structured job analysis; 187 items (plus 8 items
re: comp.) called “job elements”
Job elements are worker-oriented;6 domains:
information input; work output (physical
activities and tools); mental processes;
relationships with others; job context (physical
and social environment); and other work
characteristics (such as pace and structure)
PAQ




PAQ dedicated solely to job analysis services
since 1972
Terminology, definitions and rating scales
different than that used in DOT
Requires post-college graduate reading level
Job analysts or supervisors usually complete
PAQ
PAQ



PAQ trains subscriber employers in job analysis
techniques—in person and online
Limited coverage of managerial, supervisory,
executive and professional work led to
development of separate questionnaire
Average reliabilities—item and re-rate—range
.68-.80
PAQ/DAQ




DAQ: Disability Analysis Questionnaire.
Developed by PAQ
Includes 99 questions from the PAQ that are
most closely related to items from the DOT/HAJ
ERI modified DAQ slightly—made certain the
questions best-matched those of the DOT
The DAQ questions are the ones asked of
incumbents when visiting websites
eDOT





The “enhanced DOT” -- database and software
program developed by Economic Research
Institute (ERI)
ERI began as compensation information provider
in 1987
Started the eDOT Skills Project in 2002 to collect
data and update the DOT
In 2004, ERI purchased PAQ; PAQ operates
eDOT Skills Project under a license with ERI
Database has two parts: archived DOT and new
eDOT which includes the old DOT
eDOT
 Includes 64 SCO characteristics + 35 new factors


such as keyboarding, education, mental and
cognitive factors, etc.
Includes 20 measures from SSA’s Mental
Residual Capacity paper
Various people contribute data: subject matter
experts (job analysts trained in the use of the
PAQ; voc rehab counselors; major disability
carriers; workers compensation analysts; and
primarily incumbents visiting websites Career
Builder, SalaryExpert, SalariesReview.
eDOT
 Each data point has associated reliability,




standard error and deviation calculated
1,000-1,500 job analyses done per year,
including those by incumbents
Over 1 million PAQ job analyses included in
eDOT (completed since 1974)
Sample is one of convenience
Control for sampling error by using multiple
sources of data
eDOT

Differences between eDOT and DOT
• Different rating scales, definitions, terms
• eDOT→ uses revised version of SIC which it
developed, called eSIC
• eDOT→fluid database; DOT→fixed
• eDOT→convenience sample; DOT→attempt to
capture all jobs in the national economy
• Electronic v. paper
• PAQ→ interviewing worker, not always observing;
DOT→observation
eDOT

Examples of new jobs added to eDOT
computer sys admin
030.162-500
call center rep
299.357-201
asst. mgr retail store
185.167-505
executive asst
169.167-911
sales assistant
209.562-800
maint. helper
806.687-011
CAD/CAM Tech
017.262-519
eDOT


ERI/PAQ “masks” jobs
Criteria for exclusion:
• job analyses over 15 years old
• face validity (abalone diver)
• 10 or less requests for the job
• not listed on job boards or salary surveys
• not mentioned on any loan applications
• not on any labor/proxy/form 990
• not mentioned on Calif. state work comp
eDOT

Examples of “masked” jobs in eDOT:
animal breeder
410.161-010
military recruiter
166.267-026
pres., financial inst.
186.117-054
police commissioner
188.117-118
feed blender
520.685-094
collator operator
208.685-010
eDOT

As of January 2008, ERI had
• Added 717 new occupations
• Removed 4,103 occupations (no/low
frequency)
• Verified the existence of 8,658 occupations
• Total of 9,375 occupations in eDOT,
compared to 12,761 in the DOT and 812 in
O*NET
• As of July 2008, have added WF and MPSMS
to all jobs in eDOT
McDOT History





McCroskey Dictionary of Occupational Titles
(McDOT)
Part of the McCroskey Vocational Quotient
System (MVQS)
Based on VDARE
McDOT includes both the old DOT and O*NET.
Data has been fused from both sources,
identifying 24 most significant worker traits
UNUM: Project with eDOT

Methodology for selecting eDOT

Findings

Future Directions
Issues with DOT
Miller et al. Study 1980

Work, Jobs and Occupations: A Critical
Review of the Dictionary of Occupational
Titles

Comprehensive review & evaluation of the 1977,
4th Ed. DOT, conducted on behalf of the National
Research Council, at the request of the
Department of Labor
Issues with DOT
Miller et al. Study 1980

“The comprehensiveness, reliability and
accuracy of the DOT are in large part a
function of the data collection and analysis
procedures used to produce it.” p.114
Issues with DOT
Miller et al. Study 1980

Data Collection/Methodology Issues:
• Lack of written procedures on how DOT
produce
• Majority of principles used to create DOT
were established in 1939 & 1949
• Sampling plan “complicated and indirect,” did
not include all jobs in US economy
Issues with DOT
Miller et al. Study 1980

Data Collection/Methodology Issues:
• Heavy orientation to manufacturing sector
• Limited review of jobs requiring cognitive
skills over physical skills
• Inadequate update schedule
Issues with DOT
Miller et al. Study 1980
 Found analysts often unable to provide concrete


explanation for how they rated worker traits
besides subjective means or past experience
Some occupations not reviewed at all; others
reviewed excessively: material handler → 652
job analyses
1979 study random job titles found 81% of 4th
Ed. descriptions exactly the same as the 3rd
Edition
Issues with DOT
Miller et al. Study 1980
 Data Collection/Methodology Issues:
• 16% occupational descriptions completed
without a single job analysis
• 29% based on one job analysis
• 19% based on two job analyses
• 36% based on three or more analyses
Issues with DOT
Miller et al. Study 1980

Reliability/Validity Issues:
• Validity: measurements of worker traits/functions
found to be fairly unreliable: “vague and ambiguously
defined. Not readily apparent what the variables are
intended to measure” (p. 164)
• Worker traits/functions developed in the 1950s—
questionable validity for today’s labor market
• Question whether GED and SVP measure prestige or
social status of occupations
Issues with DOT
Miller et al. Study 1980

Reliability/Validity Issues:
• GED scale validated against curriculum content, not
validated for occupational performance
• Working conditions & physical demands appear to be
developed for unskilled, physical jobs
• Reliability: items are scored subjectively; raters had
trouble assigning some factors, particularly SVP and
aptitudes
• Reliabilities higher for manufacturing jobs than for
service jobs
Issues with DOT

Cain et al. (1983) study on reliabilities of
different ratings.
• Two job descriptions per 24 occupations; experienced
analysts rated the factors
• Found acceptable reliabilities for: data, people, GED
reasoning, GED language and SVP
• Modest reliabilities for things, GED math, strength
factors and location
• Reliabilities higher for manufacturing jobs
Issues with DOT

Botterbusch (1993): DOT weaknesses:
• Data people things not actually a hierarchy—data
is, people is not and things is two hierarchies
• GED not directly related to education
• SVP does not distinguish between formal and
informal training
• Difficulty defining, using and defending
temperaments
• Too many titles
Issues with DOT

Dunn & Growick (2000): weaknesses:
• Failure to include variables such as org.
setting and worker responsibility level
• Low reliability of worker traits
• Redundant classification system
• Skills that are psychometrically questionable,
such as GED and SVP
• Ambiguous definitions of worker traits
• Questionable validity of worker traits
Issues with DOT

Harvey (Fine et al. 2004) addressed weaknesses
of DOT:
• Legal and psychometric defensibility in the
use of holistic scales to rate worker traits—
tend to show low inter-rater reliability and
low discriminant validity
• Lack of reasonable update schedule
Issues with DOT

National Research Council (1999)
• “Unwieldy size”
• Growing differences between job descriptions
and jobs as they actually occur in the labor
market today
• Too much detail in each definition
• Jobs described by task
Issues with DOT

National Research Council cont. (1999)
• Lack of information on factors such as skills,
abilities, and knowledge requirements that are
either not collected or not reported
• Little or no reported information on cognitive
factors
• Expense of updating
• Difficulty of linking it with other databases
Issues with DOT

•
APDOT (1993): need to reinvent the DOT
• Representative of economy
• Develop new JA methodology: found existing
ones to be lacking, particularly with cognitive
skills
• Create one better at job matching, skills
transfer
Issues with DOT
1980 Miller et al. study issued several conclusions and a
number of recommendations (p.214)
Conclusion #1 – “There is a strong and continuing need
both within and outside the U.S. Employment Service for
the kind of information provided by the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles and certain other products based on
it.”
Conclusion #2 – “Substantial improvements in the
procedures and products of the occupational analysis
program are required in order to meet the national need
for occupational information.”
Issues with O*NET


“…O*NET as currently implemented arguably
fails to provide (a) occupational data expressed
at the appropriate level of detail and defensibility
needed for many functions and (b) occupational
title taxonomy that is sufficiently detailed and
phrased at the desired level of analysis” (Fine et
al., 2004, p1).
Depth of material in O*NET: telling someone
which state you live in but not giving your
address (ERI)
Issues with O*NET




Terminology and measurement scales are poorly
defined
Does not provide correct type of information on
physical demands, training requirements and
other information essential for TSA
Job demands difficult to measure (e.g. cognitive)
Use of numerical scales over interval scales
Issues with O*NET



Completed by incumbents, except for abilities
section
Problem with incomplete survey instruments
Uses mean data rather than modal data as found
in the DOT
On the + Side: O*NET



Many new variables to describe work-related
characteristics and behavior
Includes relevant aspects of work not in the
DOT, i.e. work context
Expanded knowledge requirements, training and
preparation needs
IODC Evaluation of eDOT





ERI provided complimentary eDOT software
plus two training sessions
Met with ERI staff at 2007 Forensic Conference
to discuss issues/concerns
ERI staff available to answer questions
throughout process
Separate training provided by user of eDOT at
UNUM
Provided beta versions of OccuBrowse database
with integrated eDOT
IODC Evaluation of eDOT






Intention to update DOT positive
Creative in data gathering processes
Inclusion of cognitive elements
Staffed with I/O psychologists
Presentation of raw data and data sources for
professional study
Separation of physical demands
IODC Evaluation of eDOT





New ratings gathered from convenience sample
Industries and occupations do not always match
up
Coding of occupations different than DOT
Uses mean trait ratings rather than mode used in
DOT
Method for removing occupations unsatisfactory
IODC Evaluation of eDOT





Method of data aggregation to define new
occupations are unclear
Method used to translate PAQ data into DOT
terms is unclear
Several listings for same job--confusing
Unclear and excessive number of rating scales
Based on the flawed DOT
IODC Evaluation of McDOT



IODC provided with complementary software
One training session
Vocationology available for questions, issues
throughout process
IODC Evaluation of McDOT




The new job analysis information in McDOT
comes directly from O*NET—positive and
negative
Analyses of inter-correlations among various
worker trait characteristics
Reliability and validity data
No independent job analyses were conducted by
Vocationology, Inc.
IODC Evaluation of McDOT




Since O*NET was initially derived from DOT
data, O*NET is a confounded data source as an
“update” to the DOT.
Incorporates all problems of both DOT and
O*NET
SSA has reported it will not use a database with
O*NET in it
Difficult for many to understand or explain to
judges, juries, attorneys, etc.
IODC Findings



IODC was unable to identify and endorse a
ready-to-use database that fits members needs
and needs of SSA
eDOT has potential to be that database, but many
methodological problems which need to be
solved before it is usable for transferable skills
analysis and in court settings
IODC recommends continued use of DOT until
better product is available
Moving toward a better DOT

Job Analysis Issues:
• Identification of an agreed-upon job analysis
format: reliable & valid, standardized format
• Re-evaluation and redefinition of worker
characteristics; e.g. what constitutes a
“physical demand”
• Develop improved definitions and indicators
for attributes; scales for each
• Use of decomposed rather than holistic ratings
Moving toward a better DOT

Job Analysis Issues:
• Expanded physical demand ratings: sitting,
standing, walking, reaching (above shoulder
v. forward v. downward), vehicle operation,
lift, carry, push, pull, use of controls (hands,
feet), bilateral/unilateral upper extremity use,
exposure to chemical agents, biological
hazards, latex, animals, potential food
allergens, photic triggers (seizure potential)
Moving toward a better DOT

Job Analysis Issues:
• Addition of “basic” skills including:
keyboarding, technology use (computer user,
familiarity with multiple applications, train
others, troubleshooting, etc.)
• Addition of attributes, including cognitive
requirements; deletion of others
Moving toward a better DOT

Job Analysis Issues:
• Preferred personal qualities of workers for
successful performance: attitude, initiative,
persistence, resourcefulness, honesty,
flexibility, team orientation, communication
skills, tact, organization, leadership,
efficiency, versatility, reliability, quality
orientation, attentiveness, etc.
Moving toward a better DOT

Job Analysis Issues:
• Acceptable methods of preparation for entry
into occupations: formal education, vo-tech,
apprenticeship, in-service training, OJT,
certification, licensure, registration, prior
experience
• Barriers to hiring for a specific occupation:
criminal history, appearance, personal hygiene
habits, monocular vision, etc.
Moving toward a better DOT

Data Collection/Methodology:
• Comprehensive, multi-level stratified sampling
plan
• Audit to identify where occupations are found
within businesses /industries of all sizes (e.g.
small employers with <25 employees, selfemployment)
• Use only trained/qualified professionals as job
analysts
Moving toward a better DOT

Data Collection/Methodology:
• Determine how job analysts would be trained
and retrained: what, who, where, when
• Identify whether JAs would be done solely by
resurrected Field Offices, public sector or with
help from private.
• Improvement in technical quality of data and
methodologies used, must be ongoing in order
to ensure its defensibility
Moving toward a better DOT

Data Collection/Methodology:
• Coding methodology used must make sense
• 4 raters produces good reliability; 4 raters
should be goal
• Avoid use of incumbent ratings due to
reliability problems with this data
• Online system for input of job analysis
Moving toward a better DOT

Data Collection/Methodology
• Ensure database reflects the economy/labor
market with at least 90% (preferred 95%)
confidence – tied to number of analyses
performed and variability in results obtained
• Attributes must have multiple measures
• Appropriate scaling for each attribute and submeasures must make sense
Moving toward a better DOT

Data Collection/Methodology
• Proper instrumentation/equipment must be
available to conduct an objective, measurable
rather than strictly observational job analysis
• Total number and range of attributes should be
limited to what an analyst can handle without
diminishing quality of data being gathered
Moving toward a better DOT

Data Collection/Methodology
• Identify variables needed in order to do a
TSA-job match; once identified, develop
scales, use accepted psychometric practices—
this would increase reliability
Moving toward a better DOT
 Use of Data/DOT
• Methodology needs to be explained in as
simple terms as possible for ease of customer
use
• Processes & methodologies, as well as results
of data usage, must be easily explainable to
ALJs/judges, juries, attorneys, etc.
• Software used to access data and perform
TSAs, etc., should be simplified wherever
possible to reduce errors/improve
understandability
Moving toward a better DOT
 Use of Data/DOT
• Needs to be available as stand-alone product,
not solely as part of a transferable skills
analysis product
• Allow end-users to search, compare, and
retrieve information
• Development of crosswalks should be wellexplained
Moving toward a better DOT
Use of Data/DOT
• Capable of generating printed reports
• Data available to end-users in variety of
formats, including online and in print;
particularly important that data not require
Internet connection so it can be accessed
during Social Security hearings
Moving toward a better DOT
Use of Data/DOT
• Author should have vocational rehabilitation
person(s) on staff for development phase and
customer support
Moving toward a better DOT

Updates:
• Continuously updated
• Monitor changes in labor market; reflect
changes within the database
• Work closely with OES Long Term
Projections Survey to learn of new emerging
occupations
• Sufficient funding must be provided to
develop improved database and ensure
maintenance into the future
Moving toward a better DOT

Integration:
• Method for integrating new DOT with
existing occupational classification systems
(SOC, O*NET, NAICS, etc.)
• Decisions must be made on other Labor
Market Information databases that should be
tied into an improved occupational database
to replace the D.O.T.
The IODC Committee






Angela Heitzman, MA, CRC, CLCP, MSCC
John Meltzer, MS, CRC, CDMS, LPC
Sonia Paquette, OTD, OTR/L, CPE, ABVE-D
Gerald Schneck, PhD, CRC-MAC, FVE, NCC
Jeffrey Truthan, MS, CVE
With assistance from Kelly Beery-Marsiano, MEd, CRC;
Betty Morris, MS, CRC; G. Shannon O’Kelley, MEd,
CRC; and Sharon Shou, CRC, LCPC, ABVE, all of
UNUM
References
Botterbusch, K.F. (1993, Fall). Suggestions for revisions in
the dictionary of occupational titles. Vocational
Evaluation and Work Adjustment Bulletin, 101-110.
Cain, P.S. & Green, B.F. (1983). Reliabilities of selected
ratings available from the Dictionary of Occupational
Titles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(1), 155-165.
Dunn, P.L. & Growick, B.S. (2000). Transferable skills
analysis in vocational rehabilitation: Historical
foundations, current status, and future trends. Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation, 14, 79-87.
References
Economic Research Institute. (April 2008).
Methodology/Disclaimer: Occupational Assessor™ and
Survey (OA/OA+) -- eDOT®, Software and Databases
(Professional and Consultant Editions). Retrieved from:
www.paq.com/pdf/e-dot-methodology.pdf.
Fine, S.A., Harvey, R.J. & Crenshaw, S.F. (2004, April).
FJA strategies for addressing O*NET limitations in a
post-DOT environment. In Fleischman, E.A. (Chair),
Things, Data, and People: Fifty Years of a Seminal
Theory. Symposium presented at the Annual Conference
of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Chicago.
References
Mariani, M. (1999, Spring). Replace with a
database: O*NET replaces the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles. Occupational Outlook
Quarterly, 43(1), 3-9.
McCroskey, B.J. (2008). Volcano 8.0. Brooklyn
Park, MN: Vocationology., Inc.
Miller, A.R., Treiman, D.J., Cain, P.S. & Roos, P.A.
(Eds). (1980). Work, Jobs and Occupations: A
Critical Review of the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
References
National Research Council. (1999). The Changing Nature of
Work: Implications for Occupational Analysis.
Committee on Techniques for the Enhancement of
Human Performance: Occupational Analysis,
Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. National Academy of Sciences: Washington,
DC.
United States Department of Labor. (1991). Dictionary of
Occupational Titles (4th Ed.). Washington, DC: United
States Government Printing Office.
United States Department of Labor. (1991). The Revised
Handbook for Analyzing Jobs. Washington, DC: United
States Government Printing Office.
References
United States Department of Labor. (1993).
Selected Characteristics of Occupations Defined
in the Revised Dictionary of Occupational Titles.
Washington, DC: United States Government
Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Labor (1993). The New DOT:
A Database of Occupational Titles for the 21stCentury. Advisory Panel for the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles (APDOT).
United States Department of Labor. (2008). The
O*NET Content Model. Retrieved from
http://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/ContentModel
_DetailedDesc.pdf.