Table 1.

Functional Job Analysis Rating Scales and Brief Definitions

Scale	Range of scores*			Definition
	Low	Med	High
Things	1–2	3	4	Physical interaction with and response to tangibles—touched, felt, observed, and related to in space; images visualized spatially
Data	1–2	3–4	5–6	Information, ideas, facts, statistics, specification of output, knowledge of conditions, techniques; mental operations
People	1–2	3–4	5–8	Live interaction among people, and between people and animals
Worker Instructions	1–2	3–4	5–8	Amount of autonomy afforded worker, based on the degree to which inputs, outputs, tools, and procedures required to accomplish task are specified
Reasoning	1–2	3–4	5–6	Knowledge, ability to deal with theory versus practice, abstract versus concrete and many versus few variables
Mathematics	1–2	3	4–5	Knowledge and ability to deal with mathematical problems and operations from counting and simple addition to higher mathematics
Language	1–2	3–4	5–6	Knowledge and ability to speak, read, or write language materials from simple verbal instructions to complex sources or written information and ideas
Worker Technology	1–2	3–4	5–8	Means and methods employed in completing a task or work assignment (tools, machines, equipment or work procedures, processes or any other aids to assist in the handling, processing or evaluation of things or data
Worker Interaction	1–2	3–4	5–8	Degree to which, when working with others (through direct or indirect contact), workers assist each other, coordinate their efforts and adapt their style and behavior to accommodate atypical or unusual circumstances and conditions; this effort leads to achieving employer goals to given standards
Human-Error Consequence	1–2	3–4	5–8	Degree of responsibility imposed upon the performer with respect to possible mental or physical harm to persons (including performer, recipients, respondents, co-workers, or the public), resulting from errors in performance of the task being scaled

1 is the lowest level of complexity associated with each scale, representing the lowest behavioral benchmark for the scale in question. Higher numbers mean higher degrees of complexity on each given scale. Each scale has a different maximum, because the scales are benchmarked to their natural behavioral limits. For example, complexity with respect to data was benchmarked on six naturally occurring levels: (1) comparing, (2) copying, (3) computing/compiling, (4) analyzing, (5) innovating, and (6) synthesizing. Each scale is benchmarked in a similar manner, yielding to different natural ranges. See Fine and Cronshaw²² for benchmark levels associated with each FJA scale. Fine and Getkate¹⁹ defined low, medium, and high ranges for the Things, Data, and People scales. Ranges on the remaining scales were grouped into low, medium, and high, accordingly