AI Contextual Measurement for Recovering Individual and Group-Level Effects:
Validation Against Survey Measures and an Occupational Application

A central concern in the contextual-model literature is distinguishing between-group and within-group associations (Blalock, 1984; Enders and Tofighi, 2007).Researchers studying neighborhoods, schools, firms, and occupations often seek to determine whether outcomes are driven by group environments or by differences among individuals within the same group. Estimating such models requires measures that vary at the individual level. Group-level measures can be useful for describing between-group differences, but by construction they cannot identify within-group deviations.

A large occupational-measurement literature has developed resources such as the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and O*NET to characterize jobs and occupations (Peterson et al., 2001; Autor et al., 2003; Acemoglu and Autor, 2011; Deming, 2017). These resources have been widely used to measure task content, skill requirements, technological exposure, social skills, and other features of work. Their central strength is that they provide systematic and comparable measures across occupations. Their central limitation for the present purpose is that they are usually occupation-level measures. If all workers in the same occupation receive the same score, the measure can identify only between-occupation variation.

Recent advances in large language models have created a related AI-measurement literature. Researchers have used language models to score occupations, estimate exposure to artificial intelligence, classify work tasks, generate synthetic respondents, and construct new social-science measures (Felten et al., 2021; Eloundou et al., 2024). These approaches overlap with the present paper because they use AI systems to generate quantities that were not directly measured in conventional datasets. However, most existing AI occupational measures remain group-level: occupations, occupational tasks, industries, firms, or texts receive scores, and individuals inherit the score attached to their group or label. Our contribution is to generate respondent-level measures that can be decomposed into occupation means and within-occupation deviations, making contextual analysis possible.

Individual AI measurement is related to several emerging uses of large language models in simulating human behavior and in survey research. Horton, Filippas, and Manning (2023) (Horton et al., 2023) use LLMs as simulated economic agents to reproduce and explore behavioral responses in hypothetical experiments. Argyle et al. (2023) (Argyle et al., 2023) use LLMs to generate synthetic respondents (”silicon samples”) and evaluate whether the resulting responses reproduce patterns observed in human survey data. Another line of work uses LLMs to augment surveys, address Item Non-Response or as Virtual Survey Respondents (Kim and Lee, 2023, (Kim and Lee, 2023), Ji et al., 2024, (Ji et al., 2024), Zhao et al., 2025, (Zhao et al., 2025)).

These studies overlap with the present paper because all use AI systems to infer quantities not directly observed in a survey. The distinction is in the estimand and validation target. Prior work primarily asks whether AI systems can reproduce responses, opinions, attributes, or distributions. We ask whether respondent-level AI-derived measures can support contextual analysis. Specifically, we evaluate whether AI-generated variables recover explanatory power, preserve coefficient directions, and reproduce substantive between-within conclusions obtained from observed CFPS measures. The validation target is therefore not item-level prediction alone, but recovery of substantive contextual inferences.

This distinction is important because high response-level similarity need not imply valid downstream inference. Synthetic survey data may match marginal averages while producing different variation or regression coefficients, and results may vary with prompt wording or model changes (Bisbee et al., 2024). Motivated by this concern, our validation strategy compares not only correlations between AI-derived and observed measures, but also incremental explanatory power, coefficient directions, contextual conclusions, coefficient-vector similarity, and fitted-value similarity.

The validation problem in the present study is related to but not identical to either a classical generated-regressor problem or a simple measurement-error problem. In generated-regressor settings, a first-stage estimate is often assumed to converge to a well-defined target regressor, and the central issue is how first-stage estimation uncertainty affects second-stage standard errors (Pagan, 1984; Murphy and Topel, 1985) (Pagan, 1984; Murphy and Topel, 1985). See also Escanciano and P´erez-Izquierdo 2023 Escanciano and Pérez-Izquierdo (2023) for an automatic locally robust GMM framework for inference with machine-learning-generated regressors. Recently, Ludwig et al. (2026) Ludwig et al. (2026) develop an econometric framework for using LLM outputs in prediction and estimation, emphasizing that valid downstream inference for LLM-measured concepts requires validation data to debias and account for LLM errors. In the present setting, the AI-derived measure is not assumed to converge to the observed survey response as sample size grows. Nor do we assume that the observed survey response is a perfect measure of the underlying job concept that affects satisfaction. Both the observed survey variable and the AI-derived variable may be imperfect indicators of an underlying concept.

For this reason, the central validation question is whether the AI-derived measure yields substantively similar inferences to the observed survey measure when no perfect validation data are available. This framing is closer to construct validation than to a narrow two-step inference correction. The construct-validity tradition emphasizes that validity is not established by a single statistic, but by evidence that the operational measure supports the intended interpretation and use (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955; Messick, 1989; Adcock and Collier, 2001) (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955; Messick, 1989; Adcock and Collier, 2001). Here the intended use is contextual analysis. We therefore evaluate whether AI-derived measures reproduce the contextual inferences obtained from conventional survey measures.

A useful way to interpret these imperfect validation metrics is through an underlying-concept proxy framework. Let $U$ denote the unobserved concept described by the survey item or AI prompt, let $M$ denote any candidate indicator of that concept, such as a survey measure $W$, a rich-prompt AI measure $Z^{rich}$, or a survey-prompt AI measure $Z^{survey}$, and let $X$ denote observed controls. The concept $U$ is unobserved in the dataset, but it is not an arbitrary abstraction: it is described in words by the measurement task itself, such as computer use, management responsibility, weekly hours, or foreign-language use.

Let $\widehat{Y}_{A}$ denote the population linear prediction of $Y$ from variables $A$. We use the following linear proxy-validity assumption: once the outcome-relevant component associated with the underlying concept and controls has been extracted, the remaining outcome residual is uncorrelated with the candidate indicator,

Under this assumption, the prediction $\widehat{Y}_{M,X}$ based on $(M,X)$ is the population linear projection of the oracle prediction $\widehat{Y}_{U,X}$ based on $(U,X)$ onto the information available in $(M,X)$. Consequently,

Thus, among competing indicators satisfying the same proxy-validity condition, the one with larger $R^{2}$ produces fitted values more highly correlated with the fitted values that would be obtained using the underlying concept itself.

The corresponding incremental version removes the part of the prediction already explained by the controls. Define

and let $\Delta R_{M}^{2}=R^{2}(Y\mid M,X)-R^{2}(Y\mid X)$. Then

where the partial correlation is the ordinary correlation between $r_{U|X}$ and $r_{M|X}$. This formulation is useful because it relates incremental explanatory power to the similarity between the incremental prediction signal from the candidate indicator and the incremental prediction signal from the underlying concept. In the scalar linear case, this reduces to the familiar attenuation-style identity

These identities do not require the survey variable to be the true concept, nor do they require AI and survey coefficients to be numerically equal. They also allow an AI-derived indicator to have greater explanatory power than a coarse survey item if it captures more outcome-relevant signal about the same concept. Individual coefficient signs, coefficient-vector correlations, and RMSE are useful diagnostics, but they are not guaranteed by the framework and are not the primary estimands. Favorable agreement in those quantities may suggest that the AI and survey indicators capture substantial common signal from the same underlying concept.

A common measurement strategy is to assign a score directly to a group or entity. In an occupational application, this means assigning each occupation a score for a dimension such as technology or autonomy. In other settings, the group might be a firm, school, hospital, neighborhood, or region. If individual $i$ belongs to group $g(i)$ and the AI score is constructed directly at the group level, the measure takes the form

This measure can be used to estimate how outcomes differ across groups. But because every member of the same group has the same value, the within-group deviation is zero:

Thus, group-level AI scores cannot test whether within-group heterogeneity exists. AICOME differs from direct group-level AI scoring by first constructing respondent-level measures and then deriving group-level aggregates from those respondent-level measurements.

AICOME begins by constructing respondent-level indicators of an underlying concept. For $U_{ki}$, the level of concept $k$ on individual $i$, the AI-derived measure is written as $Z_{ki}=Z(U_{ki},F_{ki};p_{k})$, where $F_{ki}$ denotes respondent $i$’s feature vector for concept $k$ and $p_{k}$ denotes the prompting protocol. In the CFPS application, the feature set always includes group membership (if available), represented by occupation, but the remaining features may vary across target concepts. The rich-prompt strategy uses a richer version of questionnaire to describe the concept, while the survey-prompt strategy uses a more concise prompt structured around the questionnaire used in the actual CFPS survey. Both strategies yield respondent-level predicted scores for each dimension.

Because these scores vary within groups, they can be aggregated to group means and used in contextual models, paralleling standard centering logic in multilevel and contextual models (Enders and Tofighi, 2007). The group mean is

The key contextual model can be written either in the raw contextual parameterization as

or in the deviation contextual parametrization as

where $Y_{i}$ is the outcome, $Z_{ki}$ is the respondent-level AI measure for dimension $k$, $\bar{Z}_{k,g(i)}$ is the corresponding group mean, and $X_{i}$ is a vector of controls. In the CFPS application, $Y_{i}$ is job satisfaction and $g(i)$ is occupation. We refer to $\beta_{I}$ as the individual or within-group association, $\beta_{C}$ as the contextual contrast, and $\beta_{G}$ as the group effect or between-group effect. The three regression coefficients satisfy the relation

When the $\beta$’s have the same sign, $\beta_{C}$ is smaller in magnitude and harder to detect than $\beta_{G}$ . This can also be aggravated by variance inflation: the standard error of $\beta_{C}$ is often larger than that of $\beta_{G}$, since the group mean $\bar{Z}_{k,g(i)}$’s are likely to be more associated linearly to the other right-hand side variables $(Z_{ki},X_{i})$’ in the raw parametrization than to the $(Z_{ki}-\bar{Z}_{k,g(i)},X_{i})$’s in the deviation parametrization.

All reported regression coefficients are standardized: $Y_{i}$ and $X_{i}$ components are standardized by their respective standard deviations, and the raw $Z_{ki}$, its group mean $\bar{Z}_{k,g(i)}$ and deviation from group mean $Z_{ki}-\bar{Z}_{k,g(i)}$ are all standardized by the standard deviation of the raw $Z_{ki}$’s so that $\beta_{G}=\beta_{I}+\beta_{C}$ holds. Standard errors are cluster-robust at the occupation level.

The controls $X_{i}$ in the CFPS application include age, gender, education and marital status from the last interview, urban residence, agricultural hukou, public or state-owned employment, whether the job is outdoors, health, and log income. Weekly hours is excluded from the control set when weekly hours is a focal validated dimension, and included otherwise.

The empirical validation proceeds at four levels. First, response-level validation examines correlations between AI-derived measures $Z$ and observed survey measures $W$. These correlations may suggest shared concept-related signal, but are not the final validation target. Second, model-level validation asks whether AI-derived measures recover incremental explanatory power and coefficient directions in non-contextual regressions. Third, contextual validation asks whether AI-derived measures recover the individual-level and group-level conclusions obtained from survey measures. Fourth, boundary validation examines when the approach deteriorates, using reduced-information and simultaneous-missingness designs.

The empirical illustration uses the 2022 wave of the China Family Panel Studies (CFPS). The data are from China Family Panel Studies (CFPS), funded by 985 Program of Peking University and carried out by the Institute of Social Science Survey of Peking University. CFPS is useful for this validation exercise because it contains rich respondent information, occupational membership, job-related characteristics, and subjective well-being measures. These features make it possible to construct respondent-level AI measures, aggregate them within occupational groups, and validate the resulting contextual structure against directly observed survey measures.

The outcome variable $Y_{i}$ is job satisfaction. In the present application, the grouping variable $g(i)$ is occupation, identified using cleaned occupational codes. Occupations are used as the empirical contextual unit for constructing group-level aggregates and estimating contextual models. The methodological framework, however, is not occupation-specific. The same logic applies to other settings in which individuals are nested within larger social units.

The validation analysis uses four observed work-related CFPS dimensions: computer use, foreign-language use, weekly hours, and management responsibilities. In the notation of the framework, these observed survey variables are denoted by $W$. They provide benchmarks for evaluating AI-derived measures $Z$. The later latent application examines autonomy, people-things, creative-routine, and technology, which are not directly observed in CFPS and therefore cannot be validated in the same way.

Detailed variable definitions, cleaning rules, AI feature sets $F$, and prompt protocols $p$ will be documented in the appendices.

For each observed CFPS dimension, we compare the survey measure $W$, the rich-prompt AI measure $Z^{rich}$, and the survey-prompt AI measure $Z^{survey}$. We also compare individual AI measures with occupation-mean versions of those measures, occupation-level AI scores, and embedding-based occupation scores in non-contextual validation models. For contextual validation, occupation-level scores cannot identify within-occupation deviations, so the contextual comparisons focus on survey respondent-level measures, rich-prompt individual AI measures, and survey-prompt individual AI measures.

For the latent application, we examine autonomy, people-things, creative-routine, and technology. These dimensions are not directly observed in CFPS. Therefore, the latent analysis evaluates robustness across rich-prompt and survey-prompt AI measures rather than direct truth recovery. It also serves an in illustration how AICOME can be applied to do contextual analysis for a concept that is not included in an actual survey.

Before examining contextual models, we first assess the correspondence between the AI-derived measures and the observed CFPS variables used for validation. Table 1 reports the correlations between the true survey measures and the corresponding rich-prompt and survey-prompt AI measures. Since later in the raw or deviation parametrization of the contextual models, each variable may appear on the right-hand side in three different forms, the raw $Z_{ki}$, its group mean $\bar{Z}_{k,g(i)}$ and deviation from group mean $Z_{ki}-\bar{Z}_{k,g(i)}$ , we include the correlations to the corresponding CFPS variable also in three forms.

The correlations are generally high, ranging from 0.684 to 0.986. Management exhibits particularly strong agreement, with correlations of 0.981 for the rich-prompt measure and 0.971 for the survey-prompt measure in the raw form. Computer use and weekly hours also show strong correspondence under both prompting strategies. Foreign language is the most challenging construct, particularly for the survey-prompt measure, which attains a correlation of 0.684 with the observed CFPS variable in the deviation form.

These results provide a useful preliminary validation benchmark. In the common-concept interpretation, high correlations may indicate that the AI and survey indicators share substantial concept-related signal.

The high validation correlations reported in Table 1 naturally raise a question about the information available to the AI model. AICOME does not generate information from nothing. Rather, it constructs indicators of an underlying concept from respondent characteristics supplied in the prompt. Consequently, the usefulness of AICOME depends on the amount of concept-relevant information contained in the available covariates.

To evaluate this dependence, we compare two information sets. The first is the full-information specification used throughout the main analysis. The second is a reduced-information specification intended to mimic a shorter survey containing only occupation and basic demographic characteristics. The reduced information set is

This specification excludes all job-specific information.

The full information set varies by target dimension and is intentionally designed to use information that would typically be available in a labor-force or household survey. The common variables used for computer use, foreign-language use, weekly hours, and management responsibilities include occupation, age, employer type, education in the last interview, organization size, and urban residence. For computer use, the AI additionally receives work location, employer type, management responsibilities, direct reports, and number of subordinates. For foreign-language use, the AI additionally receives province, management responsibilities, number of subordinates, gender, and marital status from the last interview. For weekly hours, the AI additionally receives industry, income, management responsibilities, promotion history, promotion expectations, tenure, contract status, night-shift frequency, weekend work, and on-call duties. For management responsibilities, the AI additionally receives industry, income, promotion history, promotion expectations, party membership, tenure, contract status, and marital status from the last interview.

Importantly, these full-information specifications are not constructed from variables that are inherently unavailable in survey settings. Most of the variables—such as occupation, industry, education, age, gender, income, job tenure, employer type, supervisory responsibilities, organizational size, and working hours—are routinely collected in labor-force and household surveys, while more detailed employment characteristics, such as work schedules and promotion history, are available in more detailed surveys. The full-information specification therefore represents a rich but empirically realistic survey environment in which one survey item is missing and must be inferred from other observed respondent characteristics.

The differences are substantial. In the raw form, under the rich-prompt strategy, the average correlation across the four validation dimensions declines from 0.902 to 0.277. Under the survey-prompt strategy, the average correlation declines from 0.879 to 0.251. The deterioration is particularly pronounced for weekly hours and foreign-language use. For weekly hours, the correlation falls from approximately 0.9 to essentially zero. Similar collapses occur for foreign-language use. Computer use and management remain positively correlated with the true survey measures but exhibit large declines relative to the full-information specifications.

These results indicate that AICOME depends critically on the availability of informative respondent characteristics. When only occupation and basic demographic information are available, validation performance deteriorates sharply. Conversely, when richer job-related information is available, AI-derived measures closely track the corresponding observed survey responses. This result distinguishes the present framework from stronger claims about synthetic replacement of survey data. The AI model performs well only when informative respondent and job characteristics are available; when the available information is sparse, performance deteriorates sharply. The method therefore should not be interpreted as creating respondent-level information absent from the observed data.

This boundary condition is consistent with recent work on augmenting survey data with generative AI. Brynjolfsson et al. (2026) find that supplying LLMs with rich contextual information beyond demographics substantially improves predictive accuracy in economic survey applications, whereas changes to prompting strategy alone yield smaller gains. Our results extend this pattern to a contextual-analysis setting: richer respondent information improves not only response-level correspondence, but also the ability to recover between-occupation and within-occupation structure.

Correlation alone is not the primary criterion for evaluating the usefulness of the AI-derived measures. The remainder of the validation section focuses on a more demanding test: whether AI-derived measures reproduce explanatory power, contextual conclusions, and multivariate regression results obtained from the observed CFPS variables.

We begin with non-contextual models that add one measured job dimension at a time. This first validation exercise compares all available measurement strategies, including individual AI measures, occupation means, occupation-level AI scores, and embedding-based scores. Table 3 reports $R^{2}$ values. We emphasize the gain in $R^{2}$ relative to the controls-only model because, under the underlying-concept interpretation, this gain measures the amount of outcome-relevant concept signal retained by the indicator.

The clearest case is weekly hours. The CFPS individual weekly-hours measure raises $R^{2}$ from 0.0541 to 0.0734. The rich and survey individual AI measures produce very similar $R^{2}$ values, 0.0735 and 0.0719. By contrast, the CFPS occupation mean produces a smaller $R^{2}$ of 0.0600, and the occupation-level AI score contributes essentially no explanatory power beyond controls. This pattern illustrates why individual-level measurement can matter: when a construct has substantial within-occupation signal, occupation-level measures cannot recover the full association.

In addition, the table illustrates why the CFPS survey measure should not be treated automatically as the highest-performing indicator of the underlying concept. Because survey items may be coarse and AI measures may use richer feature information or response scales, an AI-derived indicator can in some cases have comparable or greater explanatory power than the survey indicator while still measuring the same concept.

The next validation step asks whether AI-derived individual measures recover the contextual decomposition obtained from observed CFPS measures. For each construct, we estimate the equivalent raw contextual parameterization:

or the deviation contextual parametrization:

where $z_{i}$ is the individual measure and $\bar{z}_{occ(i)}$ is the corresponding occupation mean. In these parameterizations, $\beta_{I}$ is the individual or within-occupation coefficient and $\beta_{C}$ is the contextual contrast associated with the occupation mean; the group effect or between-occupation coefficient is $\beta_{G}=\beta_{I}+\beta_{C}$. Table 4 reports the results.

The contextual validation results show that AI-derived measures largely reproduce the observed-variable decomposition. Weekly hours is the strongest case. The CFPS individual effect is $-0.135$, and the rich and survey AI versions estimate $-0.136$ and $-0.129$. The contextual contrasts are also significantly negative in all three specifications. These demonstrate that the method can detect a large individual effect and a large contextual effect when such signals exist.

Management is another strong validation case. All three methods estimate positive individual effects and positive occupation group effects. However, the contextual effects are weaker and not universally significant. Computer use shows broadly consistent positive effects, though the rich-prompt method attenuates the contextual effect. Foreign language shows a weak individual effect and a stronger occupation-level component across all three approaches, though the survey-prompt occupation-mean contrast is larger than the observed or rich-prompt estimate. Overall, the AI measures recover the qualitative contextual story for all four observed dimensions. This agreement is not mechanically guaranteed by the framework. Rather, it is favorable empirical evidence that the AI and survey indicators may capture substantial common signal from the same underlying concepts. Because individual and occupation-level components may be attenuated differently across proxies, we interpret sign concordance, $R^{2}$, fitted values, and substantive conclusions as the primary evidence rather than requiring exact coefficient equality.

The preceding validation exercises consider one survey dimension at a time. In those settings, a missing construct can be inferred using other observed respondent and job-characteristic information. Many practical applications, however, involve multiple missing dimensions simultaneously. In such settings, computer use cannot be used to predict management responsibilities, management responsibilities cannot be used to predict weekly hours, and so forth, because all of these dimensions are themselves unavailable.

To evaluate this more demanding scenario, we estimate a joint contextual model in which all four validated dimensions—computer use, foreign-language use, weekly hours, and management responsibilities—are treated as simultaneously unobserved. We therefore impose a joint exclusion rule. Any variable excluded when validating one dimension is excluded from the prompts used to generate all four AI measures. In the present application, this removes direct or closely related measures of computer use, foreign-language use, weekly hours, management responsibilities, supervisory status, and number of subordinates from all four AI imputations.

This specification is substantially more challenging than the single-dimension validation exercises. After applying the joint exclusion rule, the information common to all four AI prompts consists primarily of occupation, education degree, employer type, age, organizational size, and urban residence. Some additional dimension-specific information remains available when it is not part of the union of exclusions. This design more closely resembles a realistic survey setting in which several job-characteristic measures were never collected.

This exercise is conceptually related to recent work evaluating LLM-based survey imputation under different missingness mechanisms. Holtdirk et al. (2026) study in-context learning for imputing public-opinion survey data across MCAR, MAR, and MNAR designs. Our design addresses a different validation target: several substantively connected job-characteristic variables are jointly unavailable for every respondent, and the question is whether the resulting AI-derived measures recover contextual coefficient structure rather than individual item responses alone.

Table 5 reports the results. Relative to the observed CFPS measures, the AI specifications exhibit lower incremental explanatory power and attenuation or instability in several smaller coefficients. The increase in $R^{2}$ from adding the eight contextual terms is 0.0269 using the observed CFPS measures, compared with 0.0142 for the rich-prompt AI measures and 0.0167 for the survey-prompt AI measures. In the vector interpretation, this reduction indicates that the AI4 measures retain less of the outcome-relevant concept signal than the observed survey indicators under simultaneous missingness.

No contextual effect is found to be significant in this joint model. Despite this attenuation, the overall qualitative pattern remains recognizable for the strongest signals. Weekly hours retains both negative occupation group effect and negative individual within-occupation associations. Management remains positively associated with job satisfaction. However, several smaller effects become attenuated, less precise, or less stable across prompting strategies. Thus, the AI measures recover some broad features of the contextual structure, especially for the stronger hours and management signals, but the joint-missingness design also shows that AICOME becomes less reliable when several related concepts are simultaneously unavailable.

Table 6 summarizes the similarity of the joint contextual results. In the deviation parametrization, the correlations of the eight focal coefficient vectors are 0.939 for rich-prompt AI versus observed CFPS and 0.878 for survey-prompt AI versus observed CFPS. In the raw parametrization, the correlations of the eight focal coefficient vectors are 0.869 for rich-prompt AI versus observed CFPS and 0.579 for survey-prompt AI versus observed CFPS. These correlations indicate that the broad coefficient structure is still partially recovered, especially in the deviation parametrization $(\beta_{G},\beta_{I})$. The RMSE and mean absolute difference statistics are useful descriptive diagnostics, but they are not strict validation targets because different indicators of the same concept may be attenuated by different amounts. The fitted-value correlations provide a complementary summary of whether the AI measures recover the outcome-relevant component of the contextual model.

The results suggest an important practical distinction. AICOME performs best when a missing concept can be inferred from other observed respondent characteristics. Recovering several related dimensions simultaneously is substantially more difficult because the dimensions can no longer be used to predict one another. Consequently, AICOME should be viewed primarily as a tool for recovering limited numbers of missing constructs rather than an exact replacement for jointly missing batteries of related survey questions.

Because the four occupational dimensions considered here are latent constructs without directly corresponding CFPS survey measures, their evaluation requires combining outcome-based evidence with substantive validation. We therefore examined each AI-generated dimension separately in a contextual model of job satisfaction and inspected the occupations receiving high and low average scores. This analysis revealed unexpected results for Autonomy. We first describe the diagnosis and revision of this measure and then summarize the final single-dimension findings for all four dimensions.

Tables 7C constitute the final preferred single-$Z$ results for the four latent dimensions.

The single-dimension analyses evaluate each latent occupational characteristic separately. Because Autonomy, People–Things, Creative–Routine, and Technology describe related aspects of work, however, their single-dimension associations may reflect variation shared across dimensions. We therefore estimated joint models including all four latent dimensions simultaneously. The preferred measures exclude time flexibility from the feature sets previously used to construct Autonomy and Creative–Routine, as described in the preceding diagnostic analysis.

As before, we report three effects for each dimension. The group effect, $\beta_{G}$, is the coefficient of the occupational mean in the deviation-contextual parameterization. The contextual effect, $\beta_{C}$, is the coefficient of the occupational mean in the raw-contextual parameterization. The individual effect, $\beta_{I}$, is the coefficient of the respondent-level deviation or, equivalently, the respondent-level raw score. These coefficients satisfy

Table 8 presents the resulting joint decomposition.