In Roses are red, I proposed definitions for frequently utilized at this point vague terms, for example, “competency” and “ability”.
In addition to the fact that I suggested a competency be viewed as an assignment, yet additionally that its estimation be twofold: skilled or not yet equipped.
As a more broad build, an ability isn’t so promptly estimated in a paired design. For example, the inquiry is probably not going to be whether you can examine information, yet how much you can do as such. Consequently abilities are ideally estimated through a capability scale.
Obviously various capability scales exist. For instance:
The NIH Proficiency Scale keeps up Not Applicable, Fundamental Awareness (essential information), Novice (restricted insight), Intermediate (commonsense application), Advanced (applied hypothesis) and Expert (perceived power).
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages keeps up Basic User, Independent User and Proficient User.
The Core Skills for Work Developmental Framework keeps A Novice Performer, An Advanced Beginner, A Capable Performer, A Proficient Performer and An Expert Performer.
The NSW Public Sector Capability Framework looks after Foundational, Intermediate, Adept, Advanced and Highly Advanced, while the going with Occupation Specific Capability Sets go astray from the set up example and rather keep up Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4 and Level 5.
Presumably every one of these scales adjusts to the reason for which it was characterized. So I keep thinking about whether a scale with the end goal of authoritative advancement may adjust to the Kirkpatrick Model of Evaluation:
Level Label Evidence
0 Not Yet Assessed None
1 Self Rater Self evaluated
2 Knower Passes an appraisal
3 Doer Observed by others
4 Performer Meets applicable KPIs
5 Collaborator Teaches others
Table 1. Tracey Proficiency Scale (CC BY-NC-SA)
I battle that such a scale works on the estimation of capability for L&D experts, and is introduced in a language that is clear and plainly obvious for our intended interest group.