OaSIS Canadian Ratings Guide Review

[Francois Paradis]

Good morning dear colleagues,

I am writing to provide you with an update on the development of the Canadian Ratings Guide  (CRG), which is used by ESDC to assign ratings to occupational factors in OaSIS. As you may know, ESDC plans on releasing the CRG to the public in the near future and it is a crucial document to understand occupational ratings in OaSIS.

CAVEWAS has put together an Ad Hoc committee to review a draft of the CRG and provide feedback. We have completed our review yesterday and here is a summary of our recommendations:

• We need a better understanding on how ratings were assigned to each factors (i.e. ability levels, physical demands). Are ratings based on field surveys, expert ratings or other methods?
• Some descriptors can easily be confused with one another. For example, reading comprehension (Skill) and written comprehension (ability).
• Under general common elements, difficulty levels are usually defined by complexity and duration. We recommend clear criteria to define complexity levels. Clear criteria is important to understand each complexity level. Otherwise, we have to rely on task examples provided, which are more subjective. There needs to be a better consistency of criteria between the Canadian rating guide and the Skills for Success taxonomy. The Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs (RHAJ) is another excellent source providing examples of criteria for ability levels. We also found inconsistencies of ratings between OaSIS and the Career Handbook.
• Some ability definitions have been changed from the GATB (i.e. numerical ability). The GATB defines an aptitude in terms of speed and accuracy. The speed element is no longer part of the abilities definition in the CRG. This not only creates a disconnect between the Career Handbook and OaSIS but also puts in question whether it will be possible to use existing tests to measure ability factors in OaSIS.
• Although form perception is supposed to be included in the skills and competencies taxonomy, we do not find it listed in OaSIS.
• The scale used for physical demands (i.e. static strength) does not align with the Career Handbook or the American DOT. We recommend using a method such as the Matheson table to quantify weight and frequency in a manner consistent with other classifications such as the DOT.
• The duration element should be better defined. Instead of using labels such as moderate or short duration, a percentage of the workday should be used.

Mr. Marc Gendron at ESDC has responded that our feedback will be reviewed over the summer. A meeting between this ad hoc committee and ESDC will take place in September to discuss our recommendations and to determine what can be implemented.

As always, your feedback, questions or concerns are welcome!

[Author]

Posts