Premium
Rejoinder: A Further Discussion of Job Analysis and Use of KSAs in Developing Licensure and Certification Examinations: A Response to LaDuca
Author(s) -
Wang Ning,
Witt Elizabeth A.,
Schnipke Deborah
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
educational measurement: issues and practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.158
H-Index - 52
eISSN - 1745-3992
pISSN - 0731-1745
DOI - 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2006.00056.x
Subject(s) - credentialing , licensure , certification , perspective (graphical) , psychology , job analysis , context (archaeology) , set (abstract data type) , point (geometry) , engineering ethics , medical education , social psychology , medicine , political science , computer science , law , job satisfaction , engineering , paleontology , artificial intelligence , biology , geometry , mathematics , programming language
In his commentary to our paper on the use of knowledge, skill, and ability statements in developing credentialing examinations (Wang, Schnipke, & Witt, 2005), Dr. LaDuca set forth his concerns while commending our paper for providing helpful insights into the importance of careful delineation of KSAs. We believe that there is little substantive disagreement between our position and Dr. LaDuca's. Based on the counterarguments offered in his commentary, we believe that some misunderstanding occurred regarding our main point. Our response here further clarifies our main point to address Dr. LaDuca's criticisms. Additional explanations are provided to indicate that our paper is intended to address job analysis issues over a broader and diverse array of professions/occupations/fields, and our perspective is not limited to the context of credentialing physicians. We recommend that, for such professions/occupations/fields for which task inventory constitutes an appropriate approach to job analysis, the use of KSAs should be considered to establish a linkage between the credentialing examination and the job tasks.