Are you new to the concept of competencies and their value for standard-setting in professional practice, or just frustrated and confused by diverse and poorly defined approaches? Here are some straightforward answers to frequently asked questions.
A competency is the ability to perform a task to a certain standard. Competencies may refer to either physical or intellectual tasks, in absolutely any context – recreation, the workplace, daily living, education etc. A competency results from the application of learning. Competencies that specifically apply to the workplace are sometimes called occupational competencies or practice competencies. Unfortunately there is no industry-standard set of definitions when it comes to competencies. Contradictory and ambiguous definitions abound. Historically occupational competencies have been defined as the knowledge, skills and attributes necessary to perform occupational functions, but more recently it has been recognized (consistent with an outcome-based approach to learning) that competencies are best viewed as abilities. Over many years of experience we have developed a definition that almost all of our clients find very clear and meaningful: An occupational (or practice) competency is the ability to perform a specific workplace task with a predetermined level of proficiency. From this definition it is clear that an occupational competency is not a piece of knowledge, a skill or an attribute, but the ability to apply knowledge, skills and attributes to proficiently perform workplace tasks. Occupational competencies have a lengthy history. Their use began with the work of psychologist David McClelland in 1973 when he published a research article suggesting that testing for specific competencies was a more effective method of selecting employees than the (then) more traditional IQ testing. Occupational competencies provide the most robust and defensible standards for regulation and certification. Safe and effective practice depends upon the proficient performance of workplace tasks; competencies speak directly to this. Additionally, competencies live in real time thereby relating to the day-to-day performance expectations of regulated or certified workers. Not at all. Competencies result from education; but they also go beyond it. An occupational competency results from the ability to apply learning in the workplace. By explicitly linking the curriculum of an education program to occupational competencies, we can increase the relevance of education to the workplace. “Competence” (or “competent practice”) occurs when a worker, in a specific workplace situation, acts in a safe and effective manner. Competence refers to the big (macro-level) picture, and it occurs in the moment and in the context of practice, in real time. Competence is a subjective measure that can only be determined within a specific context; it is not an objective, threshold-style attribute that a person either possesses or does not. If we are concerned with worker education or assessment, we need to work at the micro-level and with objective, not subjective, measures. This is where competencies come in. Competencies are more micro-level abilities that are objectively defined. As such, they can be taught and they can be assessed. The link between competencies and competence is that possession of (occupational) competencies enables (workplace) competence. A competency profile is simply a documented collection of competencies. It represents an array of abilities that a worker brings to the workplace, and draws upon according to the situation at hand using professional judgement. A competency profile is not a protocol (which would be an ordered list of standardized procedures that are always followed in a particular situation). A worker’s competencies may enable them to follow a predetermined protocol, but the competencies themselves are a broader, more comprehensive set of abilities, many of which may not be relevant to a specific situation. Earlier we defined a competency as: the ability to perform a specific workplace task with a predetermined level of proficiency. Any given workplace task varies in its difficulty depending upon the context in which it occurs. For example, communication varies in difficulty depending upon the receiver(s) of the communication, the nature of the message, the distractions present, and so on. In health care, the difficulty of assessing a patient depends hugely upon the characteristics of the particular patient. Even an apparently “simple” physical activity like climbing a ladder varies in difficulty with the nature of the ladder, the environmental conditions, the load that must be carried, etc. When we talk about a “level of proficiency” we mean, to put it simply: how good the worker is at carrying out the task. Unless we know the level of proficiency expected, it is impossible to undertake competency-based training or competency-based assessment. Perfect performance under all conceivable conditions is neither realistic nor achievable. The term “entry-to-practice competencies” refers to the competency set that a worker requires to begin professional practice. This is a unique and very important competency set in that possession of the entry-to-practice competencies is considered to enable safe and effective novice-level practice. Regulatory bodies normally establish their registration requirements to include demonstrated possession of the entry-to-practice competencies. Having entered practice, all workers should be expected to undergo continuous learning throughout their careers based upon experience supplemented (sometimes) by more advanced training. Over time they should progress beyond novice-level practice and become more seasoned workers, demonstrating perhaps ‘”mastery” or even “expertise”. With continued learning, a worker’s competency set evolves: level of proficiency increases in the competencies that are practiced; competencies that are not practiced may decay; new competencies may be learned. As careers progress, workers develop somewhat personalized competency sets that reflect their unique work settings, experience and uptake of learning. While an entry-to-practice competency set is necessarily administered as a “one size fits all” standard or expectation, competencies required for more mature practice will vary with the practice setting and might be considered more of a “moving target”. That said, competency sets that apply across career and across practice settings can be derived, and are typically of interest to regulatory bodies and others interested in assessing career-long competence. Ultimately, whichever body is setting standards for a workplace needs to determine the competencies required and the respective level(s) of proficiency. However a good generic definition of entry-level proficiency is as follows: The worker with entry-level proficiency addresses commonly-occurring workplace situations without supervision or direction, within a reasonable timeframe, and achieves an outcome consistent with the generally-accepted standards in the profession. The worker with entry-level proficiency recognizes unusually complex workplace situations that are beyond her / his ability, and addresses them by seeking advice or consultation with others, by reviewing literature, or by referring the situation to a more experienced worker. Competencies are more than just “learning”. They result from the ability to apply learning in the workplace. Over time, psychologists and educators have put huge effort into trying to understand how people learn. One of the most long-standing, pervasive and easy-to-understand taxonomies of learning is derived from the work of Benjamin Bloom that began in the mid-1950s; Bloom’s initial work has been built-upon by many others. Bloom’s taxonomy asserts that learning takes place in three fundamental and distinct domains: the cognitive domain (involving the acquisition of knowledge and thinking skills), the psychomotor domain (involving the ability to move parts of our body in a controlled manner in order to carry out physical activities), and the affective domain (involving the development of beliefs and value systems that guide our thinking and actions). In terms of workplace activity, the value of competencies is that they describe not learning itself but tasks that a person can perform as a result of applying learning. This makes them both directly relevant to workplace performance, and inherently measurable. Competencies are externally observable – they describe things that a worker can do (and which can be observed by others) rather than what the worker knows, understands, can demonstrate, or believes. There is no industry-standard set of definitions when it comes to competencies. Adjectives such as those listed above may be interpreted variously by different readers. Professions need to define their terminology prior to developing any competency-based document. Again this term is used in various different ways. We utilize a very precise definition of an indicator, which relates it directly to assessment: An indicator is a task that can be observed within an assessment vehicle, completion of which provides an indication of the candidate’s possession of a competency. For further information see the question “what is competency-based assessment”. We have asserted above that a competency is the ability to perform a task to a certain standard. Competency-based assessment is therefore no more than assessment that requires the actual performance of tasks to a level of proficiency that at least meets the required standard. Competency-based assessment may involve the performance of tasks involve cognitive learning, psychomotor learning and/or affective learning. In the regulated professions where an entry-to-practice standard has been set in the form of occupational competencies, competency-based assessment involves assessment of the extent to which a candidate for registration possesses the required competencies. This can be a significant challenge: an occupational competency involves the actual performance of a task in the workplace; however, candidates for registration are generally not in a position to function in the workplace. For entry-to-practice assessment regulatory bodies typically rely on assessment vehicles such as: In none of these assessment vehicles is the candidate in a position to directly perform occupational competencies. Instead, assessment relies on the observation of indicators from which proficiency in occupational competencies is inferred. We define an indicator as a task that can be observed within an assessment vehicle, completion of which provides an indication of the candidate’s possession of a competency. In general, indicators are assessment-vehicle-specific. The validity and reliability with which an indicator relate to proficiency in an occupational competency will vary with the nature of the assessment vehicle. For example, if we are interested in assessing competencies related to communication and relationship-building, indicators assessed in an oral examination or a practicum placement will be significantly more valid than those assessed in a written examination. Competencies should be regarded as an integrated set of abilities. Each of a worker’s competencies informs and qualifies all their other competencies. Competencies are not applied mindlessly, routinely or in isolation, but in combination as a result of professional judgement in the face of a particular workplace situation. Furthermore, an occupational competency profile should be a comprehensive document that includes all workplace requirements – professionalism, communication, legal aspects, collaborative practice, critical thinking and decision-making – as well as more directly client-focused outcomes.faqs