Often, aptitude has been demonstrated quite clearly in various experiences to an extent that objective evidence is available. Obviously, high grades in advanced mathematics or science classes demonstrate ability in these areas as well as or better than test scores. Similarly, winning essay contests or consistently publishing feature stories in the school newspaper may demonstrate writing aptitude of superior quality. Clients sometimes fail to recognize or to give full credence to demonstrated aptitudes; in other situations these aspects of daily life may be over-valued. Counselor and client should try to establish realistic standards for evaluating the criteria being used as well as the performance being judged against these criteria.
When the GATB is used in its entirety with a client, scores on all parts can be used to identify those Occupational Aptitude Patterns (OAP) that incorporate the client's highest skills. The GATB Manual includes lists of occupational titles that fit each OAP.
Use of selected portions of the GATB suggests that the client is seeking answers to specific questions such as "Can I compete successfully with workers who are employed as?" In this situation only those GATB parts that directly relate to the tasks performed in the job have relevance, and these parts are called Specific Aptitude Test Batteries (SATB). At present, about 460 combinations of various GATB parts have been identified as SATBs, and cutting scores have been established for these combinations. Individuals whose scores fall above the cut are assumed to have sufficient aptitude to compete successfully in the occupation.
A recent article by Droege and Boese (1982) reports further research relating the OAPs and SATBs to the sixty-six work groups included in the GOE. The described research indicates that forty-two different SATBs have been identified covering fifty-nine of the sixty-six work groups, thus providing data for 97 percent of the nonsupervisory occupations in the fourth edition of the DOT. These new OAPs are included in die 1979 edition of the Manual for the General Aptitude Test Battery, Section II. Their use permits direct translation of aptitude data to the GOE classification system.
GOG Information Scores from other comprehensive or specific aptitude tests do not translate directly to GOE or DOT codes. The career planning option of the Differential Aptitude Test scoring service does provide information that includes occupational titles purportedly related to high scores on various parts of the test. These can be used with Appendix D of the GOE to gain access to the information included in the GOE. The occupational titles can also be used to enter the DOT code structure for information located there.
Counselor familiarity with the general information provided for each GOE four-digit code facilitates the indirect translation of aptitude test data into GOE codes. For example, the skills and abilities section of the entry for "05.01 Engineering" includes among others the following statements:
To do this kind of work, you must be able to use high level mathematics, understand principles of chemistry, geology, physics, and related sciences, solve problems, using facts and personal judgment.
Obviously, high scores on the numerical, mechanical reasoning, and abstract reasoning sections of the DAT are related to these stated required aptitudes.
D-P-T codes The Worker Trait Arrangement in the third edition of the DOT is an example of the use of D-P-T codes with aptitude scores. Each of the Worker Trait Groups in each of the twenty-two Areas of Work includes a Qualifications Profile. This profile suggests appropriate quintile scores on each GATB aptitude for the given Worker Trait Group. Where the Worker Trait Group encompasses occupations at different aptitude levels, those differences are recognized by alternative quintile scores. The Qualifications Profile also includes suggested appropriate ranges of General Educational Level, Specific Vocational Preparation, Interest Areas, and Temperament Characteristics for each three-digit Worker Trait Arrangement.
The publication of the fourth edition of the DOT implies that at least some of the above third edition information is now outdated. Much of the information included in the Worker Trait Arrangement has been revised and incorporated in the GOE. However the aptitude requirements have not been included in either DOT or GOE. As indicated earlier, they can now be found in the GATB manual.
Classification systems Roe's two-dimensional classification system essentially equates a generalized aptitude estimate with the vertical axis of that system. One will recall that the six categories in that scale range from "professional and managerial, individual responsibility" down to "unskilled." Roe (1956) has described this dimension as based on level of function, including the degree of responsibility, capacity, or skill. Research by Meir (1970) has substantiated statistically that differences in level in most of the horizontal groupings can be demonstrated.
Super (1957) uses a similar vertical dimension primarily based on aptitude in his three-dimensional classification system, in which the three parts are field, level, and enterprise.
Both of these classification systems deal with aptitude in a generalized sense rather than in a differential way. In other words, instead of relating scores from specific sections of the DAT or GATB to the system, one would use an overall impression of scores in a total or composite sense. When applied in this way, both classification systems include occupational titles that can be translated to GOE and DOT codes.
Values
Values are often difficult for counselors to incorporate in the expanding phase, probably because they are frequently viewed to be restrictive in nature. Thus, if values enter the career-choice process at all, they usually are applied in the narrowing phase to eliminate occupations that might conflict with client values. A further complication arises from the fact that they are often described in one sense as global and highly influential and in another sense as very specific. An example of the first or broad use of value terminology can be seen in the Allport, Vernon, and Lindzey Study of Values that proposes a six-category typology: theoretical, economic, aesthetic, social, political, and religious. An example of the second or specific application can be seen in Super's Work Values Inventory that includes, among others, such scales as Intellectual Stimulation, Supervisory Relations, and Associates. Pryor (1979) has suggested that highly specific usages might better be described not as values but as work option preferences and dealt with in a manner similar to interests. This would restrict the use of values to global, underlying views that are more nearly related to personality than to interest.
Like other personal attributes, values are likely to be considered in the career counseling process approximately to the extent that the client expresses concern or appears to assign worth to these characteristics. In these circumstances, the term is most likely to be used in the broad-based sense. These typologies are roughly analogous to the Interest areas listed in the GOE. For example, economic values approximate Business Detail and Selling, social values are roughly equal to Accommodating and Humanitarian, and political values correspond to Leading-Influencing.
The global typologies also relate rather closely to the six single-letter Holland codes and to the horizontal axis in both Roe's and Super's classification systems. We have already discussed how these systems can be used to develop GOE and DOT codes for further exploration.
