O*Net/ Federal Government

2021 No. 063

O*NET Level Scale Anchor Updates:
Knowledge and Generalized Work Activities
Final Report
Prepared National Center for O*NET Development
for: 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27603

Authors: Brittany F. Crawford, HumRRO
Matthew C. Reeder, HumRRO
Matthew T. Allen, HumRRO
Phil Lewis, National Center for O*NET Development

Prepared Subcontract Number (through RTI International):
under: 1-312-0207142

Date: September 20, 2021

O*NET Level Scale Anchor Updates:
Knowledge and Generalized Work Activities
Table of Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
Identifying the Level Scale Anchors to Update ............................................................................. 3
Drafting Updated Anchors ............................................................................................................. 4
Scaling .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Finalizing the Updated Anchors .................................................................................................... 8
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 8
References .................................................................................................................................... 9
Appendix A: New Versus Original Anchor Descriptions: Knowledge Domain ............................ 10
Appendix B: New Versus Original Anchor Descriptions: Generalized Work Activities Domain .. 12

List of Tables
Table 1. Frequency of Flagged Level Scale Anchors by Update Category .................................. 4
Table 2. Frequency of Level Scale Anchors by Highest Match Ratings ....................................... 7

O*NET Level Scale Anchor Updates

i

O*NET Level Scale Anchor Updates:
Knowledge and Generalized Work Activities
Background
The Occupational Information Network (O*NET) is a comprehensive system developed by the
U.S. Department of Labor that provides information for over 900 occupations within the U.S.
economy. The database is maintained by the National Center for O*NET Development (“the
Center”), sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor through a grant to the North Carolina
Department of Commerce.
As a follow-up on efforts to modernize and streamline the level scales associated with the
O*NET Skills and Abilities domains (Crawford et al., 2021), the Human Resources Research
Organization (HumRRO) and the Center discussed the need to update several of the level scale
anchors included within the questionnaires used by job incumbents and occupational experts to
populate and/or update data for the O*NET Knowledge and Generalized Work Activities
domains (O*NET, 2021a). (For a description of the O*NET Establishment and Occupational
Expert data collection methodology, see: 2021 O*NET Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) clearance package Supporting Statement Part A: Justification (O*NET OMB, 2021a) and
Supporting Statement Part B: Statistical Methods (O*NET OMB, 2021b)).The level anchors are
also incorporated within generic questionnaires available for use within organization-specific job
analysis projects and research (see: O*NET Questionnaires; O*NET, 2021b). Level anchors are
often viewed as an additional source of clarity for the Knowledge and Generalized Work
Activities descriptors. Hence, they are made available for use by application developers via the
O*NET Database (see: O*NET 25.3 Database (O*NET, 2021c) and Level Scale Anchors
(O*NET, 2021d)) and O*NET Web Services (see: Reference Manual: Database Services;
O*NET, 2021e).
The level scales within the Knowledge domain provide ratings on “organized sets of principles and
facts applying in general domains” (O*NET, 2021a). The level scales within the Generalized Work
Activities domain provide ratings on “work activities that are common across a very large number
of occupations” (O*NET, 2021a). Each domain is divided into multiple elements, or specific
descriptors (O*NET, 2021a). Ratings made on 7-point level scales indicate the degree, or point
along a continuum, to which a particular descriptor is required or needed to perform a specific job.
Each level scale is preceded by the following question: “What level of the [knowledge/activity] is
needed to perform your current job?” Additionally, each level scale includes examples near the
lower end, midpoint, and higher end of the scale to provide additional context for individuals who
are completing the questionnaire. These examples are referred to as level scale anchors and the
points they fall along the scale are called anchor values.
Level scale anchors have not been updated or modernized since they were originally developed
in the mid-1990s (Peterson et al., 1995). The Center contracted with HumRRO to complete the
following activities:
1. Review each level scale anchor within the Knowledge and Generalized Work Activities
domains for issues with obsolescence and to identify other necessary revisions to
address length, language that could be difficult to understand, grammar or spelling,
redundancy, bias and sensitivity.
2. Write updated level scale anchors for those flagged for any of the previously listed revisions.

O*NET Level Scale Anchor Updates

1

3. Scale each new level scale anchor while also ensuring a match to the originally intended
element.
This resulted in HumRRO reviewing 222 level scale anchors across two domains and updating
60. The purpose of the current report is to document the technical support provided by
HumRRO to update the occupation level scale anchors for the Knowledge and Generalized
Work Activities domains.

O*NET Level Scale Anchor Updates

2

Identifying the Level Scale Anchors to Update
HumRRO staff and the Center reviewed 99 and 123 level scale anchors (hereafter, referred to
as “anchors” for brevity) within the Knowledge and Generalized Work Activities domains,
respectively, to identify potential issues with obsolescence and to identify other necessary
revisions to address length, language that could be difficult to understand, grammar or spelling,
redundancy, bias and sensitivity. After the initial review, the potential anchor updates were
grouped into the following categories:
1. Anchors flagged for replacement – anchors requiring a complete reworking and/or
modernization of the original anchor. HumRRO staff wrote replacement anchors to align
with the same element and anchor value. Anchors requiring replacement were flagged
for one or more of the following reasons:
a. Obsolescence: Technology – references to specific technology or equipment
that could be considered outdated (e.g., Videocassette Recorder (VCR)).
b. Obsolescence: Terminology – specific words or phrases that could be
considered outdated or no longer relevant (e.g., “TV program”).
2. Anchors flagged for revision – anchors requiring (compared to anchors requiring
replacement) smaller, more straightforward revisions to the original anchor that are less
likely to alter the original construct. As with the replacement anchors, HumRRO staff
wrote revised anchors to align with the same element and anchor value. Based on their
necessary revisions, anchors were flagged for one or more of the following reasons:
a. Length – exceeds the 70-character limit, excluding punctuation and spacing.
b. Simplification – contains words or language that could be difficult to understand
or may not be generalizable to the larger population.1
c. Grammar or spelling – contains spelling or grammar that could be improved.
d. Redundancy – includes repetitive or unnecessary words or language.
e. Bias and sensitivity – contains roles, situations, or general language that,
although considered neutral when the anchors where originally developed, could
now be considered insensitive due to shifts in cultural norms.2
Once HumRRO staff completed initial reviews of the anchors for the issues noted above, the
flagged anchors were reviewed again by the Center and a debriefing call was held to ensure all
necessary updates were captured. Table 1 provides the frequency of flagged anchors for each
of the categories. Although anchors could be flagged for more than one reason, in general, most
anchors were only flagged once. By percentage, the anchors within the Knowledge domain
required more replacements and the anchors within the Generalized Work Activities domain
required more revisions. Specifically, for the Knowledge domain, 20.20% and 9.09% of the
anchors were flagged for replacement and revision, respectively. For the Generalized Work
1

This included several anchors related to the Military, nuclear, missile, or spacecraft activities that would
not be as applicable to the larger population.
2
For example, “Gain cooperation from a culturally diverse group of executives hostile to your company.”
In this situation, “hostile” could be considered insensitive phrasing when discussing the culturally diverse
group of executives.

O*NET Level Scale Anchor Updates

3

Activities domain, 8.94% and 20.33% of the anchors were flagged for replacement and revision,
respectively.
Table 1. Frequency of Flagged Level Scale Anchors by Update Category
Knowledge
N (%)

Category

Generalized Work
Activities
N (%)

Replacement
Technology

10 (10.10)

5 (4.07)

Terminology

10 (10.10)

6 (4.88)

Total

20 (20.20)

11 (8.94)

Revised
Length

0 (0.00)

4 (3.25)

Simplification

8 (8.08)

16 (13.01)

Grammar or spelling

0 (0.00)

3 (2.44)

Redundancy

0 (0.00)

1 (0.81)

Bias and sensitivity

1 (1.01)

1 (0.81)

Total

9 (9.09)

25 (20.33)

Number of Flags
One

27 (27.27)

28 (22.76)

Two

1 (1.01)

4 (3.25)

Flagged

28 (28.28)

32 (26.02)

Not flagged

71 (71.72)

91 (73.98)

Note. Knowledge: 99 anchors, Generalized Work Activities: 123 anchors. Percentages are based
on the number of anchors within each domain. Anchors could be flagged for more than one
reason.

Drafting Updated Anchors
With input from the Center, HumRRO developed a set of detailed guidelines for drafting
replacement and revised anchors, then used these guidelines to develop new anchor content.
Prior to drafting the new anchors, two HumRRO analysts attended a one-hour training session
covering the necessary reference information (discussions of domains, elements, and the level
scale), descriptions and examples of each of the update categories, and instructions for the
drafting process.
HumRRO analysts were instructed to draft two replacement anchors for each original anchor
flagged for replacement, but only one revised anchor for each anchor flagged for revision. This
distinction is tied to the goals of the scaling activity. Each replacement anchor would eventually
be rated for element and anchor value match; thus, we needed a larger pool of replacement
anchors to select from in the event that some draft anchors received poor match ratings and
needed to be dropped from consideration. We discuss this process in greater detail in the
following section. Additionally, given the replacement anchors were completely reworked and
modernized versions of the original anchors, it was likely that the analysts who were

O*NET Level Scale Anchor Updates

4

independently drafting the new anchor content would produce replacement anchors that varied
in content. Having the larger pool provided additional flexibility when it came to selecting final
replacement anchors.
Guidelines for addressing the revisions for each update category were mostly straightforward.
When drafting replacement anchors for obsolete technology or terminology, it was not always
possible for the analysts to choose a similar type of technology or scenario. Instead, the analysts
focused on drafting replacement anchors that aligned with the target element and anchor value.
To address length, analysts were instructed to provide simplified alternatives to complex or
“wordy” language to shorten the anchors to 70 or fewer characters. Similarly, for simplification,
analysts revised anchors to ensure that words and the context could be easily understood by a
larger audience. In situations where an analyst encountered a word with a simpler alternative,
they were instructed to use the alternative. Electronic writing resources were provided to assist
with revisions to anchors related to spelling and grammar. For issues with redundancy, the
analysts were instructed to remove excessive or unnecessary words or phrases from the anchor.
Finally, to address issues with bias and sensitivity, we suggested that the analysts research the
most current or widely accepted language when drafting revised anchors.
After discussing guidelines for drafting anchors, we covered several important reminders. These
included:

•

Anchors could be flagged for more than one update category. If an anchor had multiple
flags, the analysts were instructed to consider the guidelines for each applicable flag.

•

If an anchor was flagged for replacement and revision, the analysts were instructed to
draft two replacement anchors that addressed obsolescence and other necessary
revisions (as opposed to only drafting a single revised anchor). In general, addressing
obsolescence was given precedence over other identified issues.

•

As previously discussed, the goal of the anchor revision/replacement process was to
draft anchors that aligned with the original element and anchor value. Analysts were
asked to flag draft anchors where they felt the anchor value may have shifted due to
their revisions (e.g., complete makeovers, unavoidable changes). Flagged anchors were
then reviewed and further revised by the project lead and technical advisor to maintain a
comparable anchor value or to determine if rescaling was required.

•

Finally, in situations where analysts did not feel confident drafting a revised or
replacement anchor because they felt they lacked the needed knowledge and
understanding of the element in question (e.g., elements that were highly technical or
complex), they were asked to make note of these anchors for discussion as a team. It
was expected that drafting replacement and revised anchors would require independent
research. For the more technical anchors, we set aside time for periodic internal
meetings to discuss our independent research related to these anchors.

The drafting process took place over the course of a month. Each analyst was provided with
their own version of an Excel workbook containing information for the original anchors (element
ID, element name, anchor description, and anchor value), indicators for whether the anchor was
flagged for each update category, and notes from the earlier reviews conducted by HumRRO
and the Center. After the analysts finished drafting the new anchor content, the replacement
and revised anchors were combined into a single Excel workbook and provided to the Center for
review. At that point, the Center was able to “veto” any of the new anchor content. They were

O*NET Level Scale Anchor Updates

5

also provided the opportunity to add any revised anchors with potential anchor value
mismatches for inclusion in the scaling activity. This resulted in two revised anchors being
included in the scaling activity. We discuss this process in the next section.

Scaling
The purpose of the scaling activity was to evaluate each of the replacement anchors and a
smaller subset of the revised anchors based on their alignment with the original element and
anchor value. Initially, we had planned to only scale the newly drafted replacement anchors
because these anchors had undergone substantial updates that could have potentially shifted
the new anchor away from the intended construct associated with the original anchor. We
anticipated that the revised anchors would include mostly smaller revisions that would be less
likely to alter the original element or anchor value. However, after HumRRO and the Center
reviewed the complied list of replacement and revised anchors, two revised anchors were
added to the list of anchors to include in the scaling activity. Both teams agreed the revisions
were substantial enough to potentially result in a mismatch for the anchor value.
Over the course of approximately two weeks, independent ratings were completed by five
HumRRO analysts. Of the five analysts, four have a master’s degree and one has a doctoral
degree in Industrial-Organizational Psychology with a range of 1-5 years of experience in their
current roles. Each of the analysts has experience either leading or supporting ongoing updates
and revisions to various components of the O*NET occupational database. To remove the
chance of bias or conflation with original revised item development, the five analysts did not
include either of the individuals who drafted the new anchor content. Each analyst rated 20
replacement anchors within the Knowledge domain. They also completed ratings for 11
replacement anchors and two revised anchors within the Generalized Work Activities domain.
The activity was preceded by a one-hour training session where the project lead and technical
advisor assisted the analysts in making practice ratings for three of the replacement anchors
and one revised anchor.
The analysts were instructed to review a description of each element and the associated level
scale before making each rating. This information was provided in separate PDF documents for
each domain. Analysts were also provided with their own Excel workbook to make independent
ratings. The workbook included the element ID, element name, original anchor value, and
original anchor description to help make their ratings. The replacement anchors were presented
in four columns (two replacement anchors drafted by two independent analysts), each followed
by three additional columns that provided a drop-down list for analysts to make the following
ratings:
1. Element match: Analysts selected “Y” to indicate that the updated anchor aligned with
the original element or “N” to indicate that the updated anchor did not align with the
original element.
2. Anchor value match: Analysts selected “Y” to indicate that the updated anchor aligned
with the original anchor value or “N” to indicate that the updated anchor did not align with
the original anchor value.
3. Adjusted anchor value: If an analyst indicated that the updated anchor did not align
with the original anchor value (i.e., if they selected “N” in the previous column), then they
were instructed to select the appropriate anchor value. (This is generally expected to be
either one unit above or below the original anchor value given the intent to draft all
anchors to align with the original anchor value). If an analyst indicated that the updated

O*NET Level Scale Anchor Updates

6

anchor did align with the original anchor value (i.e., if they selected “Y” in the previous
column), then this column was to be left blank.
The revised anchors were presented in two columns (one revised anchor drafted by two
independent analysts) on a separate sheet within the same workbook and followed the same
guidelines and format. Each sheet contained a separate column for notes where the analysts
could list any questions or concerns that they had about a particular anchor. They were also
able to list which of the anchors they felt provided the strongest replacements or revisions to the
original anchors.
After the analysts finished making their ratings, a consensus meeting was held to discuss any
discrepancies. The ratings were compiled into a single Excel workbook and shared with each of
the analysts. Only the original anchors that did not have at least one replacement or revised
anchor with 100 percent agreement (i.e., all five analysts indicated a match) for both element
and anchor value match were discussed. This was the case for two replacement anchors within
the Knowledge domain and three replacement anchors within the Generalized Work Activities
domain. For each of these cases, we began by discussing the new anchor with the highest
ratings (closest to 100 percent agreement) for both element and anchor value match. In a few
cases, more than one of the new anchors were tied for the highest ratings. When this occurred,
each anchor was discussed as a potential alternative.
Table 2 provides an overview of the frequency of the anchors by highest element and anchor
value match ratings. Overall, across both domains, most original anchors had at least one
replacement anchor that received 100 percent agreement from the analysts (Knowledge:
90.00%, Generalized Work Activities: 72.73%).
Table 2. Frequency of Level Scale Anchors by Highest Match Ratings
Highest Rating
(Element Match/Anchor
Value Match)

Knowledge
N (%)

Generalized Work
Activities
N (%)

Replacement
5/5

18 (90.00)

8 (72.73)

5/4

1 (5.00)

3 (27.27)

5/3

1 (5.00)

--

Revised
5/5

--

2 (100.00)

Note. Knowledge: 20 replacement anchors; Generalized Work Activities: 11 replacement and 2
revised anchors. Percentages are based on the number of anchors within each update category
for each domain. Five analysts rated each new anchor separately on element match and anchor
value match.

For all anchor value mismatches, analysts indicated in their independent ratings that the
adjusted anchor value should be one unit lower than the original anchor value. Throughout our
discussion, it became apparent that many of the anchor value mismatch ratings were rooted in
comparison to the original anchor content. Several analysts mentioned lowering the anchor
value for the new anchor by one unit when the original anchor referenced Military, nuclear,
missile, or spacecraft activities because these types of activities appeared more “complex” than
the newer anchor content. As a result, we shifted our discussions away from comparison to the
original anchors and, instead, focused on comparisons to the anchors positioned at the extreme

O*NET Level Scale Anchor Updates

7

ends of the corresponding level scale or to the anchor near the scale midpoint. In the end,
analysts were able to reach 100 percent agreement on all replacement and revised anchors
within the Knowledge and Generalized Work Activities domains.

Finalizing the Updated Anchors
Once the ratings from the scaling activity were finalized, a single replacement or revised anchor
was selected for each flagged original anchor. Original anchors with more than one new anchor
with 100 percent agreement were replaced by the anchor that was the most simple and modern
alternative and that best aligned with the intended element and anchor value as determined by
the project lead and technical advisor. All other anchors were replaced by the anchor agreed
upon by the analysts during the consensus meeting.
The Center completed a thorough review of each new anchor and then met with HumRRO to
discuss feedback. As a result, we drafted an alternative for one replacement anchor within the
Generalized Work Activities domain and then analysts were asked to rate the anchor value and
element match of the newly drafted anchor. Ultimately, the analysts reached 100 percent
agreement and the new replacement anchor was included in the final list of anchors. For the
other flagged anchors, minor edits were made to ensure the intended element was evident or
the anchor was replaced with an alternative anchor that had also received 100 percent
agreement. The revisions made to the latter set of anchors were not significant enough to
warrant collecting updated scaling ratings from HumRRO’s analysts. After all the revisions were
addressed, a final list of anchors that were best for inclusion for the Knowledge and Generalized
Work Activities domains was provided to the Center in a format suitable for publication. For a
comparison of new versus original descriptions for anchors that were updated, see Appendix A
(Knowledge) and Appendix B (Generalized Work Activities).

Summary
Through collaboration with the Center, HumRRO updated 28 level scale anchors within the
Knowledge domain and 32 level scale anchors within the Generalized Work Activities domain
(28% and 26% of all level scale anchors within each domain, respectively). Many of these
updates required minor revisions to address issues such as excessive length, language that
was difficult to understand or not generalizable to the larger population of occupations, spelling
or grammar, words that were repetitive or unnecessary, and potential issues with bias and
sensitivity. Other anchors required a complete reworking and/or modernization to the original
level scale anchor to address issues with obsolescence related to technology and/or
terminology. The newly developed level scale anchors provide modernized and simplified
alternatives to the original anchors.

O*NET Level Scale Anchor Updates

8

References
Crawford, B. F., Reeder, M. C., Allen, M. T., & Lewis P. (2021). O*NET level scale anchor
updates: Abilities and skills domains (2021 No. 059). Human Resources Research
Organization.
National Center for O*NET Development (2021a). The O*NET® Content Model. O*NET
Resource Center. https://www.onetcenter.org/content.html
National Center for O*NET Development (2021b). O*NET® Questionnaires. O*NET Resource
Center. https://www.onetcenter.org/questionnaires.html#generic
National Center for O*NET Development. (2021c). O*NET 25.3 database. O*NET Resource
Center. https://www.onetcenter.org/database.html#overview
National Center for O*NET Development. (2021d). Level scale anchors. O*NET Resource
Center. https://www.onetcenter.org/dictionary/25.3/excel/level_scale_anchors.html
National Center for O*NET Development. (2021e). Reference manual - database services.
O*NET Web Services. https://services.onetcenter.org/reference/database
National Center for O*NET Development. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Clearance.
(2021a). Supporting statement for O*NET data collection program. O*NET Resource Center.
https://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/omb2021/Supporting_StatementA.pdf
National Center for O*NET Development. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Clearance.
(2021b). Supporting statement B for O*NET data collection program: Collections of information
employing statistical methods. O*NET Resource Center.
https://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/omb2021/Supporting_StatementB.pdf
Peterson, N. G., Mumford, M. D., Borman, W. C., Jeanneret, P. R., & Fleishman, E. A. (1995).
Development of prototype Occupational Information Network (O*NET) content model. (Vols. 12). Utah Department of Workforce Services.
https://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/Prototype_Vol1.pdf

O*NET Level Scale Anchor Updates

9

Appendix A: New Versus Original Anchor Descriptions: Knowledge Domain
Table A1. Knowledge Domain: Original and Final Level Scale Anchors
Element

Anchor
Value

Administration and Management

2

Sign a pay voucher

Approve a reimbursement request

Administration and Management

6

Manage a $10 million company

Manage a multimillion-dollar company

Clerical

2

File letters alphabetically

Direct phone calls to the appropriate staff
member

Clerical

5

Organize a storage system for company forms

Organize a digital storage system for company
forms

Communications and Media

4

Be a radio disk jockey

Host a music radio show

Computers and Electronics

1

Operate a VCR to watch a pre-recorded
training tape

Operate a media player to watch a training
video

Computers and Electronics

3

Use a word processor

Use a computer to format a document

Computers and Electronics

6

Create a program to scan computer disks for
viruses

Create a program to scan a computer for
viruses

Customer and Personal Service

2

Process customer dry-cleaning drop off

Process a customer's dry-cleaning drop off

Customer and Personal Service

4

Work as a day care aide supervising 10
children

Be responsible for 10 children at daycare

Design

4

Draw plans for remodeling a kitchen

Design plans for remodeling a kitchen

Engineering and Technology

4

Design a more stable grocery cart

Design a custom office chair

English Language

4

Edit a feature article in a local newspaper

Edit an article for a news website

Fine Arts

5

Design an artistic display for a major trade
show

Design an exhibit for a major art show

Food Production

2

Keep an herb box in the kitchen

Grow herbs in the kitchen

Food Production

6

Run a 100,000-acre farm

Run a large production farm

Geography

4

Identify Turkey on a world map

Find a specific country on a world map

Law and Government

2

Register to vote in a national election

Describe the length of a U.S. presidential term

O*NET Level Scale Anchor Updates

Original Anchor Description

Final Anchor Description

10

Element

Anchor
Value

Original Anchor Description

Final Anchor Description

Personnel and Human
Resources

3

Interview applicants for a secretarial position

Interview applicants for an administrative
position

Philosophy and Theology

2

Watch a TV program on family values

Watch a TV show on family values

Physics

4

Calculate water pressure through a pipe

Calculate the speed of a falling object

Psychology

6

Treat a person with severe mental illness

Treat a person with a severe mental illness

Sales and Marketing

4

Call a list of clients to introduce them to a new
product line

Introduce clients to a new line of products

Sales and Marketing

6

Develop a marketing plan for a nationwide
telephone system

Develop a marketing plan for a new nationwide
high-speed internet system

Sociology and Anthropology

5

Write a pamphlet about cultural differences

Write an article about cultural differences

Telecommunications

1

Dial a phone

Send an email

Telecommunications

2

Install a satellite TV dish

Install a wireless internet router

Transportation

5

Steer a large freighter through a busy harbor

Drive a semi-truck through a busy city

O*NET Level Scale Anchor Updates

11

Appendix B: New Versus Original Anchor Descriptions: Generalized Work Activities Domain
Table B1. Generalized Work Activities Domain: Original and Final Level Scale Anchors
Element

Anchor
Value

Original Anchor Description

Final Anchor Description

Analyzing Data or Information

1

Determine the location of a lost order

Skim a short article to gather the main
point

Assisting and Caring for Others

4

Assist a stranded traveler in finding lodging

Help a medical patient find in-home
assistance or healthcare

Coaching and Developing Others

4

Provide on-the-job training for clerical workers

Provide on-the-job training for
administrative workers

Communicating with People Outside
the Organization

4

Make standard presentations about available
services

Present information to potential clients
about available services

Communicating with Supervisors,
Peers, or Subordinates

1

Write brief notes to others

Write brief messages to others

Communicating with Supervisors,
Peers, or Subordinates

6

Create a videotaped presentation of a company's
internal policies

Create and deliver a presentation on a
company's internal policies

Documenting/Recording Information

2

Record the weights of trucks that use the
highways

Record the weight of a patient during a
routine health exam

Documenting/Recording Information

6

Maintain information about the use of orbiting
satellites for private industry communications

Maintain information about the use of
satellites for industry communications

Drafting, Laying Out, and Specifying
Technical Devices, Parts, and
Equipment

4

Specify the furnishings for a new school

Specify the furniture and equipment for a
new school

Drafting, Laying Out, and Specifying
Technical Devices, Parts, and
Equipment

6

Draw the electronic circuitry for a high-speed
scientific computer

Draw the layout of a circuit board for a
high-performance computer

Establishing and Maintaining
Interpersonal Relationships

7

Gain cooperation from a culturally diverse group
of executives hostile to your company

Gain cooperation from a diverse group of
executives with competing interests

Estimating the Quantifiable
Characteristics of Products, Events, or
Information

2

Estimate the size of household furnishings to be
crated

Estimate the size of household furniture to
be shipped

O*NET Level Scale Anchor Updates

12

Element

Anchor
Value

Original Anchor Description

Final Anchor Description

Guiding, Directing, and Motivating
Subordinates

4

Supervise a small number of subordinates in a
well-paid industry

Manage a small team of employees in a
dynamic workplace

Identifying Objects, Actions, and
Events

4

Judge the acceptability of food products

Judge the suitability of food products for
an event

Inspecting Equipment, Structures, or
Material

6

Inspect a nuclear reactor

Conduct a thorough inspection of an
aircraft engine

Judging the Qualities of Objects,
Services, or People

6

Establish the value of a recently discovered
ancient art work

Establish the value of a recently
discovered ancient artwork

Making Decisions and Solving
Problems

4

Select the location for a major department store

Select the location for a major retail store

Monitoring and Controlling Resources

2

Work as a housekeeper responsible for keeping
track of linens

Work as a server responsible for keeping
track of utensils

Organizing, Planning, and Prioritizing
Work

4

Plan and organize your own activities that often
change

Plan and adjust a personal to-do list
according to changing demands

Performing Administrative Activities

2

Complete routine paperwork on standard forms

Complete routine paperwork

Performing Administrative Activities

4

Complete tax forms required of self-employed
people

Complete tax forms for a small business

Performing for or Working Directly
with the Public

1

Tend a highway toll booth

Check tickets at a concert

Performing for or Working Directly
with the Public

4

Sell shoes in a popular shoe store

Sell shoes in a crowded shoe store

Performing for or Working Directly
with the Public

6

Perform a monologue on national TV

Perform a monologue on TV

Performing General Physical Activities

1

Walk between work stations in a small office

Walk between workstations in a small
office

Processing Information

2

Tabulate the costs of parcel deliveries

Calculate the costs for shipping packages

Repairing and Maintaining Electronic
Equipment

1

Use knobs to adjust a television picture

Use display settings to adjust a television
picture

O*NET Level Scale Anchor Updates

13

Element

Anchor
Value

Original Anchor Description

Final Anchor Description

Repairing and Maintaining Mechanical
Equipment

4

Adjust a grandfather clock

Change the oil on a tractor

Selling or Influencing Others

4

Deliver standard arguments or sales pitches to
convince others to buy popular products

Make a sales pitch to convince others to
buy a product

Selling or Influencing Others

6

Deliver major sales campaign in a new market

Deliver a major sales campaign in a new
market

Staffing Organizational Units

7

Direct a large recruiting and employment program Direct a recruiting program for a large
for a large international manufacturing
international organization
organization

Working with Computers

2

O*NET Level Scale Anchor Updates

Enter employee information into a computer
database

Enter employee information into a
database

14