Last updated Aug 23 1995 3:00pm

The rating scale is the heart of the DACUM-AMOD competency model system.

It is what makes the skill definitions take on added meaning.

It is what permits practitioners to quickly put the competed competency model to work, without having to creat complex measures for all the identified skills.

The scale permits measuring as soon as it is applied to a competency model chart.

THE AMOD SCALE**

Originally
created 1968
by Robert E Adams
as the
DACUM Rating Scale
with input from:
LeBlanc Sweeney
Lantz Doucet
West and Shaw

Slight
modification
1995

Back to Rating Scale Menu

Some Background on the DACUM - AMOD scale

[AMOD logo] The AMOD scale is attached to each completed description of tasks/skills/competencies, giving the model depth and levels, instantly making it a competency model.

Performance ability of each individual is measured for each skill against the 7 levels of the scale. Performance levels are recorded directly on each skill/competency in the chart form.

If there are 200 skills on the AMOD chart, each is rated using the same AMOD scale. No need to design new measures for each skill. With 200 skills, we now have 1200 measures.

The baseline in the AMOD scale is the 3 level. It is where we begin looking at the scale. Then look up or down to the other levels. Always return to the baseline as a reference.

The scale is linear. The steps build on each other. A performer cannot go to a higher level without having performed and earned a rating at the previous levels. Just because someone with a 3 in a skill finds an opportunity to teach someone else how to perform that skill, it doesn't qualify them at 6. They must first prove they perform at the 4 level, then at the 5 level, then prove they perform that skill at the 6 level.

The AMOD scale is intended to measure competence only in individual skills. It is not an overall measure, nor can ratings be averaged in any meaningful way. When ratings are recorded, it is like a map that shows data like the elevation of landmarks.

By attaching the scale to a DACUM or AMOD description of the skills, it is instantly possible to judge and quantify the performance of someone in the occupation or in a training program. Adding the DACUM or AMOD scale makes it a competency model.

ORIGINS

The original objective in building DACUM was to create a job analysis tool or competency model that once built would become the curriculum or training guide for a learning program.

The intent was to:
a) greatly shorten program development time
b) greatly reduce development costs
c) greatly increase industry input and control.

The scale was originally designed to better reflect how people are actually assessed in industry, by being observed by their supervisors or peers who are highly skilled in the same skills. They know how well others perform. The scale simply allows them to quantify that knowledge of ability to perform.

Back to Rating Scale Menu

THE AMOD SCALE as applied to performers in a TYPICAL TRADE

Back to Rating Scale Menu

Typical Performer

Any one performer will have skills distributed over several levels. No-one would ever have all of their skills at a single level. Here we show a typical, good performer's ratings in various skills as a bell shaped curve

A typical performer in the occupation might have skills distributed over all the levels. Most would be at the 3 level, with fewer at the fourth level distributed in a bell shaped curve.

Even a good solid performer will have some at the zero level, has never learned to perform them, and some at only the 1 level. These may be skills that are less needed by the average performer.

Average performers may have a few skills at the 5 and even 6 levels, those they have an opportunity to practice and perform to a high level

Many can happily perform confidently with this profile as a valued employee, without striving to advance to upper level jobs and upper level profiles

Back to Rating Scale Menu

The Exceptional Performer

The curve of an exceptional performer's ratings would be skewed toward the upper levels.

This profile might represent that of a skilled foreman or supervisor, or an instructor in a training program for the occupation.

Even though considered highly skilled, such performers may still have low ratings in some skills, because those skills are rarely needed in the current job, or because the performer is part of a team where someone else regularly performs them.

It just may not have been practical to improve these skills to a much higher level.

Back to Rating Scale Menu

The New Learner

This is the kind of ratings distribution one might find in a typical entrant to a learning program.

Most learners come to training programs already possessing some skills. That is what likely led them to pursue the training. They find the skills interesting and easy to learn.

Most beginners in computer science and programming likely arrive already possessing some skills in basic programming, learned at high school or on a home computer.

Persons entering a graphics arts training program most likely alreadyhave many art skills,although at a lower level.

Those entering an engineering or technology training program no doubt will bring excellent skills in math and science.

Back to Rating Scale Menu

Completing Training

On leaving training a learner will still not have the profile of a typical performer.

That will come after cosiderable experience on the job, and opporuntities to apply the skills at progressivley higher levels.

It takes that experience to raise skill ratings to the 2, 3, and 4 levels.

The learner may have a zero rating in some skills, those not included in the training program.

Learners will be able to use this kind of profile to obtain an entry level job and do productive work.