Assessing Competencies
Assessing Competencies Required for Different Roles
Given the range of practitioners and professions relevant to climate adaptation, it is impossible to describe competency profiles for every potential role or function. Further, as previously stated, not all climate adaptation roles will require the same competencies, or the same level of proficiency in each competency. The degree to which climate adaptation is the focus of an individual’s role, and the functions of climate adaptation that are most relevant to that role, will shape the degree to what each practitioner requires. Mapping specific competencies to roles and the development of assessment tools aligned with the framework are important pieces for implementation of the framework. In the next pages, we provide a simple self-assessment tool as well as some example role profiles, indicating the areas of the framework that are most related to their work. Before we get there, we should talk about proficiency scales.
PROFICIENCY SCALES
Formal and informal assessments and learning activities related to the framework are not part of the core competency framework. These are generally developed after the framework has been finalized, as different competencies and performance criteria lend themselves to different approaches to measuring performance expectations, and performance expectations will vary in different situations and geographies.
Many people use the term “proficiency levels” to describe levels in a framework. In the CACFv2 we have identified the difference between competencies in one area that are simple or more complex (levels of complexity) and levels of proficiency, which are the basis for assessment.
The simplest way to explain the difference is that although the competencies within a competency area may be more complex than others (e.g., “follow policy” vs “develop policy”), every competency can be measured against a proficiency scale (i.e., how well or how consistently does someone perform against the performance criteria). There are different proficiency scales that may be used when developing assessments for a competency.
Some competencies may lend themselves to a typical skill progression scale (i.e., a variation on the Dreyfus model) as shown in Figure 5:
Typical Progression/Proficiency Scale. Adapted from the Open Competency Toolkit by Dennis Green and Carolyn Levy CC:BY SA4.0
Other competencies may be better assessed by a binary system – such as “competent” or “not yet competent”. This often applies to explicitly or demonstrably measurable competencies like working safely where you can either perform to expectations or you can’t.
Competencies that rely heavily on behavioural indicators are often best reflected using a frequency scale (Figure 6). For these, it’s important to measure how often the behaviour is demonstrated, rather than measuring the difficulty or complexity.
| Sample Behavioural Frequency Scale | |||||
| How frequently is this behaviour demonstrated? | |||||
| Rating | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Frequency | Never | Sometimes | Usually | Consistently | Leads by Example |
| Descriptor | No experience in this area, or limited experience and requiring constant training/supervision | Aware of expected behaviours; requires regular reminding or reinforcement | Regularly demonstrates the behaviour; self-identifies gaps and faults; requires occasional reminding or reinforcement | Consistently demonstrates the behaviour; may remind others of expectations | Models the behaviour for others; provides guidance and direction to others |
Figure 6: Typical Frequency Scale
As people use the CACFv2 to develop assessments, some or all of these scales may be utilized. We have used a simple proficiency scale in our self-assessment tool.