JP2003196432A - Evaluation support device, evaluation support method and evaluation support program - Google Patents

Abstract

<P>PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide an evaluation support device, evaluation support method and evaluation support program, capable of eliminating prejudiced evaluation to support proper evaluation on a person or a thing. <P>SOLUTION: This device is provided with an evaluation point input means for inputting an evaluation point for a subject to be evaluated by an evaluating person, a deviation value calculating means for calculating the deviation value of the evaluation point input by the evaluation point input means, a correlation value calculating means for calculating the correlation value between the deviation value calculated by the deviation value calculating means and a designated value, and an evaluating person information output means for outputting the evaluating person information related to the evaluating person corresponding to the minimum correlation value among the correlation values calculated by the correlation value calculating means. <P>COPYRIGHT: (C)2003,JPO

Description

Detailed Description of the Invention

[0001]

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 1. Field of the Invention The present invention relates to an evaluation support device, an evaluation support method, and an evaluation support program that support the evaluation of a person or thing, and particularly to eliminate the biased evaluation and support the proper evaluation of the person or thing. Evaluation support device,
An evaluation support method and an evaluation support program.

[0002]

2. Description of the Related Art In a company or the like, a general written test, a thesis test, an interview, etc. are conducted to train human resources and secure human resources with higher added value. In general, evaluations such as a dissertation test and an interview test are subject to subjectivity. Therefore, the number of evaluators is set to multiple and the evaluation items are made fine so as to make it as objective as possible.

For example, in the evaluation of interviews, personnel evaluations in a company, various competitions, papers, etc., a plurality of evaluators scored detailed scoring items, and the average was taken as the final evaluation score. These evaluations are often carried out by the subjectivity of the evaluator or consultation by the committee. There is also a method in which a plurality of evaluators perform evaluation, such as the evaluation of gymnastics competitions and figure skating competitions, and the highest evaluation (highest score) and the lowest evaluation (lowest score) are excluded and the remaining evaluations are added.

However, in the present situation, it is very difficult to make a fair judgment in papers and interviews, even if the evaluation criteria are decided in detail. Therefore, a method in which the score evaluated by a certain evaluator is replaced with a deviation value, and the average value of the evaluators is calculated using the deviation value to obtain the correct evaluation result of the evaluator (Hiroshi Ikeda: Test Science, Japanese Cultural Science, 1992) Year, 1
22 to 128).

[0005]

However, the above-described evaluation method does not evaluate the evaluator but makes an average evaluation with the evaluator who makes a biased evaluation. Since the evaluators are treated in the same row, the evaluation ranking is changed by the evaluators who make a large bias with other evaluators, and it is hard to say that each evaluator evaluates with the same influence. There was a problem that it was difficult to maintain the objectivity, legitimacy, and transparency of the evaluation.

There is also a problem that an unfair evaluation may be intentionally performed. The present invention is
An object of the present invention is to provide an evaluation support device, an evaluation support method, and an evaluation support program capable of eliminating biased evaluation and supporting proper evaluation of a person or thing.

[0007]

In order to solve the above problems, the present invention employs the following configurations. The score evaluated by the evaluator is replaced with the deviation value, the average for each evaluation item is calculated, and the correlation with the deviation value of the evaluation result of each evaluator with respect to the average value is calculated.

A warning that the evaluator having the lowest correlation with the average deviation value (the correlation coefficient is small) may be biased as the evaluator is issued, and the evaluation result excluding this evaluator is given. indicate.

Further, by calculating the evaluation result in consideration of the degree of correlation with the average deviation value, it is possible to calculate the evaluation result which incorporates many opinions of the evaluator close to the average. This is to calculate an average point by multiplying each evaluation result by a correlation coefficient with the average deviation value.

That is, according to one aspect of the present invention, the evaluation support apparatus of the present invention has an evaluation point input means for inputting an evaluation point of an evaluation target by an evaluator, and an evaluation point input by the evaluation point input means. Deviation value calculating means for calculating the deviation value of the evaluation point of the evaluation object, and correlation value calculating means for calculating the correlation coefficient between the deviation value of the evaluation point of the evaluation object calculated by the deviation value calculating means and a predetermined value And an evaluator information output means for outputting evaluator information regarding an evaluator corresponding to the smallest correlation coefficient among the correlation coefficients calculated by the correlation value calculating means.

Further, in the evaluation supporting apparatus of the present invention, it is preferable that the predetermined value is an average value of deviation values to be evaluated by each evaluator. Further, in the evaluation support device of the present invention, it is desirable that the predetermined value be a deviation value by an arbitrary evaluator.

Further, in the evaluation support apparatus of the present invention, it is desirable that the evaluator information output means includes warning information indicating that the evaluation is biased. Further, it is preferable that the evaluation support device of the present invention further includes an evaluation result output unit that obtains and outputs the evaluation result of the evaluation target based on the deviation value calculated by the deviation value calculation unit.

Further, in the evaluation support apparatus of the present invention, the evaluation result output means selects the object to be evaluated by the evaluator corresponding to the smallest correlation coefficient among the correlation coefficients calculated by the correlation value calculation means. It is desirable to output a value based on the evaluation point deviation value of the evaluation target by the remaining evaluators, excluding the deviation value of the evaluation point, as the evaluation result of the evaluation target.

Further, in the evaluation support apparatus of the present invention, the evaluation result output means calculates the deviation value of the evaluation point of the object to be evaluated by the evaluator calculated by the deviation value calculation means by the correlation value calculation means. It is desirable to output a value weighted based on the value of each evaluator weighted by the corresponding correlation coefficient.

With the above configuration, it is possible to prevent the evaluation rank of the evaluated person from being changed by the evaluator who is far apart from the other evaluators. Also,
The opinion of a proven evaluator can be widely adopted,
A more accurate and highly objective evaluation is possible.

[0016]

BEST MODE FOR CARRYING OUT THE INVENTION Embodiments of the present invention will be described below with reference to the drawings. FIG. 1 is a configuration diagram of an entire system including an evaluation support device to which the present invention is applied.

In FIG. 1, the evaluation support device 1 comprises an evaluation point input means 11, a deviation value calculation means 12, a correlation value calculation means 13, an evaluator information output means 14, and an evaluation result output means 15. .

The evaluation point input means 11 inputs an evaluation point to be evaluated by an evaluator from an external terminal device using an input device such as a keyboard or a mouse, or via a network such as the Internet or an intranet. . It is desirable to store the input evaluation points in the evaluation database (DB) 2.

The deviation value calculation means 12 calculates the deviation value of the evaluation points input by the evaluation point input means 11. At this time, the evaluation points may be directly received from the evaluation point input means 11 or may be read from the evaluation DB 2. The calculated deviation value is preferably stored in the evaluation DB2.

The correlation value calculating means 13 calculates the correlation coefficient between the deviation value of the evaluation points by the evaluator calculated by the deviation value calculating means 12 with respect to the object to be evaluated and a predetermined value.
At this time, the deviation value of the evaluation point with respect to the object to be evaluated by the evaluator may be directly received from the deviation value calculating means 12 or may be read from the evaluation DB 2. Further, the predetermined value may be, for example, an average value of deviation values of evaluation points with respect to the evaluation object by each evaluator, or may be deviation values of evaluation points with respect to the evaluation object by any evaluator. Good. The calculated correlation coefficient is preferably stored in the evaluation DB2.

The evaluator information output means 14 outputs evaluator information concerning the evaluator corresponding to the smallest correlation coefficient among the correlation coefficients calculated by the correlation value calculation means 13,
Output to an external terminal device using an output device such as a display device or a printing device, or via a network such as the Internet or an intranet. At this time, the calculated correlation coefficient may be directly received from the correlation value calculation means 13 or may be read from the evaluation DB 2. Also,
The evaluator information includes warning information indicating that a certain evaluator makes a biased evaluation.

The evaluation result output means 15 obtains the evaluation result of the object to be evaluated based on the deviation value calculated by the deviation value calculation means 14 and uses an output device such as a display device or a printing device, or Output to an external terminal device via a network such as the Internet or an intranet. For example, among the correlation coefficients calculated by the correlation value calculating means 13, a value based on the remaining deviation value excluding the deviation value of the evaluation point by the evaluator corresponding to the smallest correlation coefficient. May be used as the evaluation result, or the deviation value of the evaluation point of the object to be evaluated by the evaluator calculated by the deviation value calculating means 12 is weighted by the corresponding correlation coefficient calculated by the correlation value calculating means 13. A value weighted based on the value of each evaluator may be used as the evaluation result.

The evaluation DB 2 stores the total of evaluation points, the standard deviation, the average of evaluation points, the average of deviation values, the rank based on the deviation values, etc., including the evaluation points, the deviation values, and the correlation values. The structure that can be used is the evaluator database (D
B) Each evaluator stored in 3 and each evaluator stored in the evaluator database (DB) 4 have it.

The evaluator DB 3 has a structure capable of storing at least the name of the evaluator (evaluator name) and an identifier (evaluator ID) for uniquely identifying the evaluator. The evaluator DB 4 has a structure capable of storing at least the name of the evaluated person (evaluated person name) and an identifier (evaluated person ID) for uniquely identifying the evaluated person.

FIG. 2 is a flowchart showing the basic flow of the evaluation support process to which the present invention is applied. When the evaluation support process by the evaluation support device 1 is started, step S2
In 1, the result (scoring result) of the grade (evaluation) for each examinee (evaluated person) by the grader (evaluator) is acquired from each grader.

In step S22, step S21
The deviation value for each examinee is calculated for each grader based on the scoring result obtained in. In step S23, step S22
An average score (average value) for each examinee is calculated based on the deviation value calculated for each grader.

In step S24, correction is made by the evaluation of the grader. Specifically, the correlation coefficient between the deviation value for each examinee and the average value for each examinee is calculated for each grader, and the grader with the lowest correlation coefficient is identified as the biased evaluator. , Except for the grader's evaluation, each examinee's evaluation is requested.

Then, in step S25, the evaluation of the examinee obtained in step S24 is output. FIG. 3 is a flowchart showing the flow of the evaluation support process (when obtaining an average evaluation result) to which the present invention is applied.

When the evaluation support process by the evaluation support apparatus 1 is started, in step S31, a grader (evaluator)
The scoring results for each examinee will be obtained from each grader.
In step S32, the deviation value of each examinee is calculated for each grader from the scoring result obtained in step S31.

In step S33, step S32
The average score for each examinee is calculated based on the deviation value calculated for each grader. Then, in step S34, when there are a plurality of evaluation items, a correlation coefficient between the average score (average score of the score deviation values) of each evaluation item and the deviation value of the grader's score is calculated (calculated). .

In step S35, step S34
The evaluator information regarding the evaluator corresponding to the smallest correlation coefficient among the correlation coefficients calculated in step S6 is output. The evaluator information is, for example, warning information indicating that this evaluator (evaluator corresponding to the smallest correlation value) may be biased.

In step S36, step S34
Among the correlation coefficients calculated in step 1, except for the deviation value of the grader who may have biased evaluation (lowest correlation),
Calculate the average deviation value for each examinee by other graders.

In step S37, step S36
Ranks are determined in descending order from the test taker with the highest score based on the average value calculated in. Then, in step S38, the ranking determined in step S36 is output as a display or a print as the evaluation (scoring result) of the examinee.

FIG. 4 is a flow chart showing the flow of the evaluation support process (when obtaining the evaluation result in accordance with the criteria of the specific grader) to which the present invention is applied. When the evaluation support process by the evaluation support apparatus 1 is started, in step S41, a graded result for each examinee by the grader is acquired from each grader.

In step S42, step S41
The deviation value for each examinee is calculated for each grader from the scoring result obtained in (1). Then, in step S43, the correlation coefficient between a specific grader (for example, the president) and the deviation value of the grades of other graders is calculated (calculated) for each examinee and totaled.

In step S44, step S43
The evaluator information regarding the evaluator corresponding to the smallest correlation coefficient among the correlation coefficients calculated and totalized is output.
The evaluator information is, for example, warning information indicating that this evaluator (evaluator corresponding to the smallest correlation value) may make an evaluation that does not fit the idea of the specific grader.

In step S45, step S43
Among the correlation coefficients calculated in step 1, except the evaluation of the grader with the lowest correlation coefficient, the evaluation is performed for each examinee by other graders. In step S46, the rank is determined in descending order from the examinee with the highest score based on the evaluation performed in step S45.

Then, in step S47, the ranks determined in step S46 are evaluated by the examinees (scoring results).
Then, the output such as display or printing is performed. Next, a specific example of the evaluation support process to which the present invention is applied will be described with reference to FIGS. Here, the evaluator (scorer) who performs the evaluation
Are the grader A, the grader B, and the grader C, and the evaluated persons (examinees) to be evaluated are STU001 and STU00.
2, STU003. The evaluation is an interview test, and 4 items of attitude (maximum score of 20), knowledge (maximum score of 30), experience (maximum score of 10), and tact (maximum score of 40), and a total of these (total of 100 points) There is.

FIG. 5 is a table showing the scoring results without any processing in the specific example of the evaluation support processing to which the present invention is applied. Grader A is STU001, STU
002 and STU003 are 85 points and 75 points, respectively.
As a result of assigning points, 65 points, the evaluated person is STU001,
STU002 and STU003 are ranked first, second, and third in this order.

Similarly, the grader B receives 50 points and 7 points, respectively.
As a result of adding 0 points and 90 points, STU003, STU00
2 、 STU001 in order of 1st, 2nd, 3rd,
As a result of the grader C scoring 65 points, 80 points, and 60 points, STU002, STU001, and STU003 are ranked first, second, and third.

Then, when the average score (average of ABC) of the graders A, B, and C for each evaluator is calculated, 66.7 points and 75 points are obtained for STU001, STU002, and STU003, respectively. The score was 0.0 points and 71.7 points, which were evaluated as 1st, 2nd and 3rd in the order of STU002, STU003 and STU001.

FIG. 6 is a table showing deviation values as scoring results in a specific example of the evaluation support process to which the present invention is applied. Grader A is STU001, STU002, S
As a result of adding 85 points, 75 points, and 65 points to TU003 (see FIG. 5), each deviation value is 6
2, 50, 38, and the evaluated person is STU001, S
TU002 and STU003 are ranked first, second, and third in this order.

Similarly, the grader B selects STU001, ST
50 points and 7 points for U002 and STU003 respectively
As a result of adding 0 points and 90 points (see FIG. 5), the respective deviation values are 38, 50, 62, and STU003, ST
U002 and STU001 are ranked in the order of 1st, 2nd and 3rd, and the grader C is STU001, STU002, ST
As a result of assigning 65 points, 80 points, and 60 points to U003 (see FIG. 5), the respective deviation values are 46,
64, 40, STU002, STU001, ST
U003 is ranked first, second and third in order.

Then, with respect to the deviation value of each evaluator, the average values (average of ABC) of the graders A, the grader B, and the grader C are calculated, and STU001, STU002, STU
003 to 48.7, 54.7, 46.
7 and STU002, STU003, STU001
It is evaluated as 1st, 2nd and 3rd in this order.

FIG. 7 shows a scoring result which is not processed in the specific example of the evaluation support process to which the present invention is applied.
It is a table for each item. For example, the grader A
For STU001, STU002, STU003,
As a result of scoring for attitude items, 15 points each
Points, 17 points, and 18 points are 25 points, 28 points, and 15 points, respectively, as the scoring results for the knowledge item, and 10 points, 8 points, and 8 points are the scoring results for the experience item, respectively.
8 points are the score results for the item of quickness, 35 points, 22 points, and 24 points respectively, and 85 points, 75 points, and 65 points are the total points of attitude, knowledge, experience, and tact, respectively. There is.

FIG. 8 shows, as a scoring result, a deviation value of the scoring result for each item in FIG. 7 in the specific example of the evaluation support process to which the present invention is applied. For example, the grader A is STU001, STU002, STU003.
The attitude items are 36.6, 52.7,
60.7, knowledge items 54.2, 59.6,
36.2, items of experience are 64.1, 42.9,
42.9, the items of tact are 64.0, 41.3,
It is 44.8.

Then, when the average score of the deviation values of the grader A, the grader B, and the grader C (average of ABC) is calculated, STU0
01, STU002, and STU003, 36.6 and 53.
5, 59.8, 47.3, 56.8, 45.9 as scoring results for knowledge items, respectively, 54.7, 47.6, 4 as scoring results for experience items, respectively.
7.6, the scoring results for the tact item are 49.9, 51.5, and 48.6, respectively.

Grader A's score and A for each grader,
The correlation coefficient with the average of B and C scores is 0.72, which is calculated from the following equation.

[0049]

[Equation 1]

Here, r is the correlation coefficient, x _i is the scoring result of the examinee _i , y _i is the average scoring result of the examinee i's grader,

[0051]

[Equation 2]

Is the overall average score of the examinees,

[0053]

[Equation 3]

Is the overall average score of the graders. Specifically, ((36.6-50) (36.6-50) + (5
2.7-50) (53.5-50) + (60.7-5)
0) (59.8-50) + (54.2-50) (47.
3-50) + (59.6-50) (56.8-50) +
(36.2-50) (45.9-50) + (64.1-)
50) (54.7-50) + (42.9-50) (4
7.6-50) + (42.9-50) (47.6-5)
0) + (64.0-50) (49.9-50) + (4
1.3-50) (51.5-50) + (44.8-5)
0) (48.6-50)) / (((36.5-50) ²
+ (52.7-50) ² + (60.7-50) ² + (5
4.2-50) ² + (59.6-50) ² + (36.2-
50) ² + (64.1-50) ² + (42.9-50) ²
+ (42.9-50) ² + (64.0-50) ² + (4
1.3-50) ² + (44.8-50) ² ) × ((36.
6-50) ² + (53.5-50) ² + (59.8-5
0) ² + (47.3-50) ² + (56.8-50) ² +
(45.9-50) ² + (54.7-50) ² + (47.
6-50) ² + (47.6-50) ² + (49.9-5
0) ² + (51.5-50) ² + (48.6-5
0) ² )) ^1/2 ) ≈ 0.72.

Similarly, the grader B for each evaluated person
Correlation coefficient between the score and the average value of the ABC score for each evaluated person is 0.34, and the score of the grader C for each evaluated person and the average value of the ABC score for each evaluated person The correlation is 0.66.

Therefore, the grader B has the lowest correlation coefficient with the average value of the ABC scores for each evaluated person. FIG. 9 is a table showing the scoring results of the deviation values excluding the scorers who have scored unevenly.

As is clear from FIG. 8, it is the grader B having the lowest correlation coefficient of 0.34 with the average value of the ABCs of the respective assessors, which is biased. Therefore,
Excluding the evaluation of the grader B, the average value (average of AC) of the grader A and the grader C for each evaluated person is calculated.
AC for U001, STU002, STU003
Are 54.0, 57.0, and 39.0, respectively, and are ranked first, second, and third in the order of STU002, STU003, and STU001. Although the rank is the same as in the case shown in FIG. 6 (average of ABC), the value of the deviation value is changing.

FIG. 10 is a table showing the scoring results of the deviation values when the evaluation is weighted by the correlation coefficient of each grader. In FIG. 10, the “average in consideration of correlation coefficient” of the evaluation by the graders A, B, and C of STU001 is
Calculate by the following formula. Average of STU001 correlation coefficient consideration = ((
TU001 scoring result (deviation value) × (correlation coefficient of grader B) + (scoring result of STU001 of grader B (deviation value)) × (correlation coefficient of grader C) (STU0 of grader C)
01 scoring result (deviation value) x (correlation coefficient of grader A) / ((correlation coefficient of grader A) + (correlation coefficient of grader B) + (correlation coefficient of grader C) )) That is, (62 × 0.72 + 38 × 0.34 + 46 × 0.66)
/(0.72+0.34+0.66)≈51.1.

Similarly, the graders A, B and C of STU002
The average consideration of the correlation coefficient of the evaluation by 5 is 55.4, the average consideration of the correlation coefficient of the evaluations of STU003 by A, B, and C is 43.5, and STU002,
STU003 and STU001 are ranked first, second, and third in this order. Although the ranking is the same as in the case shown in FIG. 6 (average of ABC) and the case shown in FIG. 9 (average of AC), the value as the evaluation result has changed.

Next, a display example of the evaluation support process to which the present invention is applied will be described with reference to FIGS. 11 to 17. Figure 11
[Fig. 7] is a diagram showing an example of a screen for inputting the scored points.

The grading person can make a direct contact with the above-mentioned evaluation support device 1 or from a terminal device via a network.
Enter the examinee identifier (ID) and the score of each grade item.
In FIG. 11, the examinee ID is “001001”.
Is input, the attitude is 20 points, and the knowledge is 18 as the score of each scoring item for the test taker “Taro Yamada” corresponding to the test taker ID obtained by searching the evaluator DB4.
Points, 8 points of experience, and 30 points of skill were input.

FIG. 12 is a diagram showing an example of a screen displaying a list of scores of each examinee scored by one grader. Figure 1
In 2, the grader “scoring taro” scores the respective scoring items graded for the test takers “Taro Yamada” “Jiro Yamashita” “Fujisaburo”, the total score, and the ranking by the total score.

FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of a screen displaying a list of the scores and deviation values of each examinee scored by each grader. In FIG. 13, the scores (raw points) of the graders “scoring Taro”, “scoring Taro”, and “scoring Taro”, and the average score, for the examinees “Taro Yamada”, “Jiro Yamashita” and “Fujisaburo” respectively. , The deviation value, along with the ranking by the average point,
The average of the deviation values and the rank according to the average are displayed.

FIG. 14 is a diagram showing an example of a screen for warning the grader having the smallest correlation coefficient. The screen example shows that the score of "Scoring Jiro", which has the smallest correlation coefficient of 0.34, is biased from the average including other scorers and is visually emphasized by color or illuminance. ing.

FIG. 15 is a diagram showing an example of a screen displaying the deviation value excluding the score of the grader having the smallest correlation coefficient, the average thereof, and the ranking based on the average. FIG.
It is a figure which shows the example of a screen which displayed the scoring result of the deviation value when considering the specific gravity of a grader, and FIG. 17 is a figure which shows the example of the screen which displayed the scoring result entirely.

As described above, the embodiments of the present invention have been described with reference to the drawings. However, the evaluation support apparatus to which the present invention is applied may be implemented in the above-described embodiments as long as its function is executed. The present invention is not limited to this mode, and may be a single device, a system composed of a plurality of devices, an integrated device, or a system in which processing is performed via a network such as a LAN or WAN. Needless to say.

In addition, as shown in FIG. 18, a bus 2309
A system including a CPU 2301, a ROM or RAM memory 2302, an input device 2303, an output device 2304, an external recording device 2305, a medium driving device 2306, a portable recording medium 2310, and a network connection device 2307 connected to the. That is, the ROM or RAM memory 2302 recording the program code of the software that realizes the system of the above-described embodiment, the external recording device 2305, and the portable recording medium 2310 are supplied to the evaluation support device, and the evaluation support device is supplied. It is needless to say that it is also achieved by the computer of reading and executing the program code.

In this case, the program code itself read from the portable recording medium 146 or the like realizes the novel function of the present invention, and the portable recording medium 2310 or the like in which the program code is recorded realizes the present invention. Will be configured.

As the portable recording medium 2310 for supplying the program code, for example, a flexible disk, a hard disk, an optical disk, a magneto-optical disk, C
D-ROM, CD-R, DVD-ROM, DVD-RA
M, a magnetic tape, a non-volatile memory card, a ROM card, various recording media recorded via a network connection device 2307 (in other words, a communication line) such as electronic mail or personal computer communication can be used.

Further, as shown in FIG. 19, the computer 2400 executes the program code read out onto the memory 2401 to realize the functions of the above-described embodiments, and also, based on the instruction of the program code, The OS or the like running on the computer 2400 performs a part or all of the actual processing, and the processing also realizes the functions of the above-described embodiments.

Further, the program code read from the portable recording medium 2410 or the program (data) provided by the program (data) provider is connected to the function expansion board inserted in the computer 2400 or the computer 2400. After being written in the memory 2401 included in the function expansion unit, the CPU included in the function expansion board or the function expansion unit performs a part or all of the actual processing based on the instruction of the program code, and depending on the processing, The function of the embodiment described above can be realized.

That is, the present invention is not limited to the embodiments described above, and various configurations or shapes can be adopted without departing from the gist of the present invention. Here, enumerating the features of the above-described embodiment,
It is as follows. (Supplementary Note 1) Correlation value calculating means for calculating a correlation value between an evaluation point of an object to be evaluated by an evaluator and a predetermined value; And an evaluator information output means for requesting evaluator information about an evaluator corresponding to the evaluation support device. (Supplementary Note 2) An evaluation support method executed in an evaluation support device, comprising calculating a correlation value between an evaluation point of an object to be evaluated by an evaluator and a predetermined value, and calculating the correlation value among the calculated correlation values.
An evaluation support method characterized by obtaining evaluator information about an evaluator corresponding to a correlation value smaller than a predetermined threshold value. (Additional remark 3) The said predetermined value is an average value of the deviation value by each evaluator, The evaluation support method of Additional remark 2 characterized by the above-mentioned. (Supplementary Note 4) The evaluation support method according to Supplementary Note 2, wherein the predetermined value is a deviation value by an arbitrary evaluator. (Additional remark 5) The above-mentioned evaluator information includes additional warning information indicating that a biased evaluation is performed.
The evaluation support method according to any one of 1. (Supplementary note 6) The evaluation support method according to any one of supplementary notes 2 to 5, wherein an evaluation result of the evaluation target is obtained and output based on the calculated deviation value. (Supplementary Note 7) The output of the evaluation result is that a value based on the remaining deviation value excluding the deviation value corresponding to the smallest correlation value among the calculated correlation values is output as the evaluation result. The evaluation support method described in Appendix 6. (Supplementary Note 8) As for the output of the evaluation result, the calculated deviation value is weighted by the calculated corresponding correlation value, and a value based on the weighted value by each evaluator is output as the evaluation result. The evaluation support method described in appendix 6. (Supplementary note 9) An evaluation support program executed in an evaluation support device, comprising a function of calculating a correlation value between an evaluation point of an evaluation target by an evaluator and a predetermined value, and a predetermined value among the calculated correlation values. An evaluation support program for realizing a function of obtaining evaluator information about an evaluator corresponding to a correlation value smaller than the threshold of. (Additional remark 10) The said predetermined value is an average value of the deviation value by each evaluator, The evaluation support program of Additional remark 9 characterized by the above-mentioned. (Supplementary Note 11) The evaluation support program according to Supplementary Note 9, wherein the predetermined value is a deviation value by an arbitrary evaluator. (Supplementary Note 12) The evaluation support program according to any one of Supplementary notes 9 to 11, wherein the evaluator information includes warning information indicating that a biased evaluation is performed. (Supplementary note 13) Any one of supplementary notes 9 to 12 for realizing the function of obtaining and outputting the evaluation result of the evaluation target based on the deviation value calculated by the function of calculating the deviation value. Evaluation support program described in. (Supplementary Note 14) The function of outputting the evaluation result includes, of the correlation values calculated by the function of calculating the correlation value,
14. The evaluation support program described in appendix 13, wherein a value based on the remaining deviation value excluding the deviation value corresponding to the smallest correlation value is output as an evaluation result. (Supplementary Note 15) In the function of outputting the evaluation result, the deviation value calculated by the function of calculating the deviation value is weighted by the corresponding correlation value calculated by the function of calculating the correlation value, and the weighting is performed. 14. The evaluation support program described in appendix 13, wherein a value based on a value by each evaluator is output as an evaluation result. (Supplementary Note 16) A computer-readable recording medium storing an evaluation support program executed in an evaluation support device, the function of calculating a correlation value between an evaluation point of an evaluation target by an evaluator and a predetermined value, A computer-readable recording medium storing an evaluation support program for realizing a function of obtaining evaluator information about an evaluator corresponding to a correlation value smaller than a predetermined threshold value among the calculated correlation values.

[0073]

As described above, according to the present invention,
Since it is possible to exclude evaluators with biased evaluation results,
It is possible to prevent the evaluation rank from being controlled by an evaluator with a wide range of evaluations, and to give a more objective evaluation to an evaluation that is subjective in nature and may differ significantly depending on the evaluator. .

Further, according to the present invention, since the evaluation result incorporating many opinions of the evaluator who makes an evaluation close to the average score is adopted, it is possible to further increase the objectivity. Further, according to the present invention, it is possible to largely adopt the opinion of an evaluator who has a track record, and it is possible to perform more accurate and highly objective evaluation.

[Brief description of drawings]

FIG. 1 is a configuration diagram of an entire system including an evaluation support device to which the present invention is applied.

FIG. 2 is a flowchart showing a basic flow of an evaluation support process to which the present invention is applied.

FIG. 3 is a flowchart showing a flow of an evaluation support process (when obtaining an average evaluation result) to which the present invention is applied.

FIG. 4 is a flowchart showing a flow of an evaluation support process (when an evaluation result is calculated according to a criterion of a specific grader) to which the present invention is applied.

FIG. 5 is a table showing scoring results without any processing in a specific example of the evaluation support process to which the present invention is applied.

FIG. 6 is a table showing deviation values as scoring results in a specific example of the evaluation support process to which the present invention is applied.

FIG. 7 is a table showing, by item, a scoring result without any processing in the specific example of the evaluation support process to which the present invention is applied.

8 is a table showing, as a scoring result, a deviation value of the scoring result for each item in FIG. 7 in a specific example of the evaluation support process to which the present invention is applied.

FIG. 9 is a table showing the scoring results of deviation values excluding the scorers who have biased scores.

FIG. 10 is a table showing the scoring results of deviation values when the evaluation is weighted by the correlation coefficient of each grader.

FIG. 11 is a diagram showing an example of a screen for inputting a score.

FIG. 12 is a diagram showing an example of a screen displaying a list of scores of each examinee scored by one grader.

FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of a screen displaying a list of scores and deviation values of each examinee scored by each grader.

FIG. 14 is a diagram showing an example of a screen for warning a grader having the smallest correlation coefficient.

FIG. 15 is a diagram showing an example of a screen displaying a deviation value excluding a score of a scorer having the smallest correlation coefficient, an average thereof, and a rank based on the average.

FIG. 16 is a diagram showing an example of a screen displaying a result of scoring a deviation value in the case where the weight of a grader is taken into consideration.

FIG. 17 is a diagram showing an example of a screen which displays the scoring results as a whole.

FIG. 18 is a configuration diagram of an evaluation support device.

FIG. 19 is a diagram illustrating loading of a program in a computer according to the present invention.

[Explanation of symbols]

1 Evaluation support device 2 Evaluation database (DB) 3 Evaluator database (DB) 4 Evaluated person database (DB) 11 Evaluation point input means 12 Deviation value calculation means 13 Correlation value calculation means 14 Evaluator information output means 15 Evaluation result output means 2301 CPU 2302 memory 2303 Input device 2304 Output device 2305 External recording device 2306 Medium drive device 2307 Network connection device 2309 bus 2310 portable recording medium 2400 computer 2401 memory 2410 portable recording medium

   ─────────────────────────────────────────────────── ─── Continued front page    (72) Inventor Osamu Takahashi             1 Shimonoboro Techno Park, Atsubetsu-ku, Sapporo-shi, Hokkaido             1-5, Fujitsu Hokkaido Syst             In system engineering (72) Inventor Noboru Moriyama             1 Shimonoboro Techno Park, Atsubetsu-ku, Sapporo-shi, Hokkaido             1-5, Fujitsu Hokkaido Syst             In system engineering F-term (reference) 5B056 BB21 BB62 BB64 HH00

Claims (5)

[Claims] 1. An evaluation support method executed in an evaluation support apparatus, wherein a correlation value between an evaluation point of an object to be evaluated by an evaluator and a predetermined value is calculated, and a predetermined correlation value among the calculated correlation values is calculated. An evaluation support method characterized by obtaining evaluator information about an evaluator corresponding to a correlation value smaller than a threshold value. 2. The evaluation support method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined value is an average value of deviation values by each evaluator. 3. The evaluation support method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined value is a deviation value by an arbitrary evaluator. 4. The evaluation support method according to claim 1, wherein the evaluator information includes warning information indicating that a biased evaluation is performed. 5. The evaluation support method according to claim 1, wherein an evaluation result of the evaluation target is obtained and output based on the calculated deviation value.