Recent evaluation of the US Department of Labor's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) suggested that ratings from occupational analysts could be replaced by data imputed from incumbents' ratings. This study evaluates the viability of imputing job descriptor data, usually provided by analysts (ability ratings), using regression-weighted incumbent task ratings. This study also uses (O*NET) databases to compare a series of possible strategies for imputing task, ability, and skill data on the basis of either incumbent or analyst ratings. Findings do not provide clear support for the superiority of using one data source over another when imputing ratings. Imputed and existing ratings are shown not to be equivalent based on variance explained statistics and comparisons of factor structures, indicating that both sources provide unique information.