Biomanufacturing Skill Standards

Results of the Validation Study

This section reports the results of the occupation surveys designed to validate the work of participants in the two summer workshops to describe the duties, tasks, and competencies of the ten different occupations.

Questions Asked and Analysis Data

Demographic Summary of Respondents

Results by Occupation

Questions Asked and Analysis Data

We included several demographic questions—size of company, location of company, and job category of respondent. People were asked to provide two ratings for each competency listed for their occupation. We first asked them to rate the IMPORTANCE (criticality plus frequency) of performance in their job. The scale for importance ranged from 1=Critical to the job, 2=Necessary and important, 3=Useful/helpful and 4=An asset but not necessary. There was also a fifth rating, Not Appropriate - NA.

The second rating was for the amount of TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE someone entering this occupation should have. The scale for training/experience ranged from 1=More training/ more experience, 2=More training/some experience, 3=Some training/more experience, 4=Some training/some experience, 5=Little training/little experience. There was also a sixth rating, NA=Not appropriate.

The demographic information and the ratings for each competency were keyed for electronic storage into a text file and imported into a statistical software package (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, SPSS version 13.0). The actual competencies were made into variable labels by converting the surveys into a text format and adding the variable names. For this appendix, both the duties and tasks had to be added as well.

An average rating of importance was computed for each competency. The training/experience responses were recoded into a more/some/little category variable and the proportions of respondents who chose any of the three categories were computed. These are the figures in the following tables.

A few competencies that were judged by the respondents to be of little importance or not appropriate were eliminated from the original list generated by institute participants.

Top