Child pages
  • Working Page... Competency Object Elements
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

The table below summarizes the various potential elements of a Competency Object, as well as the number of reviewed outcome frameworks and survey respondents that include each component.

We define a Competency Object as an umbrella term used by the CWG to describe ANY abstract statement of learning or performance expectations, and information related to the statement.  Statements include, but are not limited to, learning outcomes, competencies per se, learning objectives, professional roles, etc.  The Competency Object may include additional data to expand on or support the statement.  The object is abstract in the sense that it does not inherently contain information about applications of the statement to individuals or events or other objects.

Element

Explanation

% of organizations surveyed that recommended inclusion of this element (n=23)

% of reviewed frameworks that include element (n=11)

Proposed status for our specification

Other comments

Unique ID

A unique identifier for the competency

n/a

55

Required alphanumeric.  One only.

 

Statement

Typically one sentence to state the competency/outcome

95

100

Required open-ended text. One only.

 

Type

Indicated the type of statement (outcome, objective, competency, etc.)

74

36

Required, controlled list.  One only.

See Types of Objects

Description

A more detailed explanation of the statement

70

36

Optional, open-ended text.  Multiple allowed.

 

Assessment Methods

List of acceptable or recommended methods by which to assess the statement

65

27

Exclude.

(1) No standard taxonomy exists so this would have to be open-ended.  (2) Decided this is best published in an accompanying guide, not in the spec itself. (3) Assessment data to be described in the Competence Evidence spec.

Performance Criteria

Specific behaviour(s) to be exhibited as evidence of competence

65

9

Exclude.

Assessment and criteria are complex notions that might be best expressed in a parallel spec or document, not in the competency object itself.  May be considered in Competence Evidence spec.

Level

Define different levels of achievement (beginner, advanced, etc.)

10

0

Exclude.

(1) Does not seem to be a present need; (2) Can be represented as sub-competencies; (3) May be considered in Competence Evidence spec.

Degree of competence or standard to be met

Describes the various degrees to which one can be competent (e.g. not/partially/fully competent)

-

-

Exclude.

(1) How is this different than performance criteria or level?  (2) May be considered in Competence Evidence spec.

Conditions for Performance / Context

Context/environment in which performance should be exhibited

57

9

Exclude.

(1) How is this related to Performance Criteria and levels?  (2) A competency in a different context can be represented as a different competency. (3) May be considered in Competence Evidence spec.

Outcome Criteria

Patient outcome or system efficiency data that indicate competence

52

9

Exclude.

(1) Does not seem to be a present need;  (2) May be considered in Competence Evidence spec.

Multiple Languages

Expressing each competency and associated data in multiple languages

26

18

Optional.  Minimum one language required.

 

References

References to supporting literature or other data

45

27

Optional.  Contains hyperlink.  Multiple allowed.

 

  • No labels

1 Comment

  1. If type is to be "Required, controlled list. One only." that comes with implications. The category terms need to be defined with sufficient clarity that different people will generally assign the same kind of competency to the same category – otherwise it becomes a hindrance rather than a help.

    But following on the call today (2009-09-09) it looks like people are happy making this optional and possibly multiple, which changes the feel into something more like a "tag" – which should not pose any problems.