Abstract

This study asks whether reference evidence is job-related and evaluated consistently. Public evidence frames the governance boundary, while a 30-record local sample supplies descriptive observations. [1] [2] [3]

Methodology

Editors retained source population, purpose, and limits. The design uses 30 records, 2 independent reviewers for ambiguity, stable definitions, and no invented public company rate. Counts, a median, the 90th percentile, unresolved records, and reviewer disagreement remain separate.

Research question and boundary

The question is whether reference evidence is job-related and evaluated consistently. Sending, assigning, approving, and completing are different events; authority and consequence remain explicit.

Government, academic, standards, and local operating records answer different questions and are not combined into false certainty.

Evidence interpretation

The study samples completed reference records after removing unnecessary personal details. It distinguishes factual role scope, observed behavior, and opinion. Reviewers mark where inference extends beyond evidence or a question was not applicable. Groups are not compared when denominators are too small for privacy. Findings can improve consistency but do not authorize intrusive questions.

For this executive-support question, the bounded application is to map approved reference questions to documented duties and review whether candidates received consistent evidence standards. [1] [2] [3]

Measurement design

Relevant measures include criterion coverage, skipped questions, unsupported inference, reviewer agreement, privacy exceptions, and later validation evidence. Each requires a denominator, observation window, source system, and interpretation limit.

The study reports missing records, censored observations, exceptions, and known confounders rather than dropping inconvenient cases.

Limitations and decision use

The cited sources do not establish a universal target for whether reference evidence is job-related and evaluated consistently. Sector, role, regulation, consequence, and available backup affect applicability.

A second 30-record sample using the same definitions is required before treating a pattern as stable. The result supports a bounded governance decision, not a causal claim.

Operational implication

Use the measured pattern to map approved reference questions to documented duties and review whether candidates received consistent evidence standards. Record the decision owner and the evidence date, then repeat the same definitions in a later review window. The final record should identify the observation that changed the decision, the unresolved uncertainty, the system holding the supporting evidence, and the date when the conclusion expires. Preserve excluded records with reasons so a reviewer can reconstruct the denominator and distinguish a real change from altered data collection.

If the later sample changes direction, revise the interpretation explicitly rather than silently changing a threshold. This keeps the research conclusion traceable to the records that supported it.

Key findings

  • The study samples completed reference records after removing unnecessary personal details. It distinguishes factual role scope, observed behavior, and opinion. Reviewers mark where inference extends beyond evidence or a question was not applicable. Groups are not compared when denominators are too small for privacy. Findings can improve consistency but do not authorize intrusive questions.
  • The evidence supports examining criterion coverage, skipped questions, unsupported inference, reviewer agreement, privacy exceptions, and later validation evidence without collapsing them into one score.
  • Apply the result by choosing whether to map approved reference questions to documented duties and review whether candidates received consistent evidence standards.
  • Repeat the defined sample and keep unresolved cases visible.

Sources

  1. National Wages: Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative Assistants, O*NET OnLine
  2. Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
  3. Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative Assistants, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
  4. Executive Assistant Salary, 2026 Salary Guide, Robert Half
  5. 2026 Salary Guide methodology, Robert Half
  6. Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
  7. OEWS Data Overview, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
  8. OEWS Frequently Asked Questions, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
  9. OEWS Technical Notes, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
  10. Occupational Employment Projections, 2024 to 2034, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Return to the Research Content library