<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
  <teiHeader>
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title>Employment psychology</title>
        <author>
          <persName>
            <forname>Henry Charles</forname>
            <surname>Link</surname>
          </persName>
        </author>
        <author>
          <persName>
            <forname>Edward L.</forname>
            <surname>Thorndike</surname>
          </persName>
        </author>
      </titleStmt>
      <publicationStmt />
      <sourceDesc>
        <bibl>
          <msIdentifier>
            <idno>1028407564</idno>
          </msIdentifier>
        </bibl>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <text>
    <body>
      <div>TESTING MEN ASSEMBLERS 
73 
clip; the fourth a bicycle bell, etc. The task of the sub 
ject is to take the object in each compartment and as 
semble it. Twenty minutes were given for this test and 
Ae results recorded according to the scale of values worked 
°ut by Professor Stenquist. The object of this test was 
to discover mechanical ability. 
This experiment was conducted in two sections. In 
the first section all but the last of the tests named were 
given to thirty-one men engaged in action assembling. 
the second section of the experiment all the tests were 
g ly en to fifty-one finishing assemblers and twenty-six 
action assemblers. During the course of the first part of 
the experiment, all the assemblers were on a day-work 
father than a piece-work basis, and for this reason it was 
lrtl possible to obtain an objective rating of the men based 
°u their actual production. Therefore, in lieu of some- 
ning better, each foreman was asked to rank the men. 
t was carefully explained to him that his ranking should 
^ based upon his opinion as to the possible production of 
men if they were allowed to work on a piece-work 
a sis. The fact that during a previous drive on production 
jfi°st of these men had been on piece-work made it possible 
r the foreman to make such a ranking on something more 
. an merely hypothetical grounds. The foremen’s rank- 
lr fgs were then mathematically compared with the ranking 
° tbe men in the various tests, with the following results: 
Correlations 
No. 31—Spatial 
No. 34—3 Trials 
No. 31—Hand 
1 Action 
Perception 
Dynamometer 
Sse mblers. . 
•56 
.18 
.29</div>
    </body>
  </text>
</TEI>
