GROUP DISCUSSION SYSTEM FOR COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT

摘要

Existing general interview or group discussion competency evaluation was based on the human subjective value judgment method, so the accuracy, fairness, and reliability of the evaluation was weak, and the consistency and objectivity between the evaluator or interviewer were poor, resulting in many complaints from the subjects, There was high distrust of the group discussion competency evaluation system. As a solution to this, the inventor''s automatic unattended collective discussion competency evaluation scoring system is further developed from the existing collective discussion competency evaluation based on human subjective value judgment, and the evaluator''s competency development stage and competency retention only once. Unmanned automatic group discussion that enables electronic mechanical, unmanned, automatic, and objective scoring evaluation without the need for a group discussion competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer by introducing a scoring technique based on a mechanical specific objective behavioral scale measure By developing into a competency evaluation scoring system, it improves fairness, reliability, accuracy, and unmanned autonomy for evaluation, and even a beginner can easily and accurately conduct a group discussion competency evaluation scoring evaluation without the need for a competency evaluation expert. It was possible to perform unattended automatic group discussion competency scoring and evaluation without the need for a group discussion competency evaluator or interviewer. Group Discussion Competency Assessment Possible responses to respondents regarding task presentations that require the respondent''s response by means of behavioral presentation, situational presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation, which can evaluate the capabilities inherent in the evaluator, that is, the degree of future possibility Actions are graded into specific objective action scale indicators that can distinguish the evaluator''s competency development stage and competency retention level with only one question presentation, and record and store it in an unattended automatic group discussion competency evaluation scoring system in advance. In addition, by comparing and analyzing the scores, the score deviation due to the difference in value and interpretation of the evaluator or interviewer for the same behavior of the respondent was resolved. The main difference between the present invention and the invention in the existing competency evaluation and interview evaluation is that the existing invention isa method of discriminating competency accordingtothe number of correctanswers by presentingseveralquestions, whereas the present invention providescompetency withonequestion presentation.The main difference is the ability to discriminate.Part of the60central departments,such as the Patent Office,destination, blue, circle, room,senior officials onlypromotion test, exaggerated promotion test,open positionrecruitment test, the officer promotion test of municipalities, Commissioner promotion examsetc. committee,executives of public companies Although thecompetency evaluation is carried outin the promotion test, executive promotion test, executive promotion test of private large companies, and executive promotion test,these national institutions, public enterprises, and large companies have huge budgets and excellent technicians, but they are all the same as the present invention.As the capacityevaluation scoring evaluation system with thecapability automatic discrimination functionhas not been established, the capacity evaluation is still carried out by using the large-scale budget, a lot of manpower, and a lot of time, and the direct face-to-face method of the competency evaluator and test taker.If the present invention is an invention that can be easily made by ordinary engineers through design changes or configuration changes, national institutions, public enterprises, and large companies with huge budgets and excellent engineerswould have made thesame as the first invention. . However, since the present invention is an invention that requires technical progress, not an invention that can be easily created by ordinary technicians, even national institutions, public corporations, and large corporations possessing excellent technicians havenot yet invented, and still have a lot of budget and A lot of manpower and a lot of time are used, and the competency evaluation is conducted by the direct face-to-face method of competency evaluators and test takers.