KR20200086600A - Oral presentation for competency assessment - Google Patents

Abstract

The present invention relates to a scoring evaluation paper for an unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation which is the introduction of the scoring and evaluation technique based on a mechanical and specific objective behavioral rating scale method that can discriminate the level of capability development and the level of capability retention of an assessee by presenting only one question to the existing oral presentation capability evaluation based on the subjective judgement of an assessor or interviewer. According to the present invention, it is possible to improve fairness, reliability, and accuracy of evaluation by developing a mechanical and objective unmanned automatic scoring evaluation without the need for an evaluator or interviewer.

Description

ORAL PRESENTATION FOR COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT}

The present inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring paper uses a method that introduces a mechanical objective scoring evaluation technique that can discriminate the competency development stage and competency retention level of an evaluator in an oral presentation competency evaluation with a single question. The unmanned automated scoring by the machine is possible, so that the evaluator's competency development stage and competency level can be discriminated with only one question presentation without the need for an oral presentation competency evaluator or interviewer. It is about the mechanical objective unmanned automatic scoring evaluation paper for presentation capability evaluation.

The present inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring paper provides behavioral presentation, situation presentation, and questions in the oral presentation competency evaluation test task of the oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system to confirm the competency of the evaluator, that is, the degree of future possibility. Present the task to the respondent in a way that requires the respondent to respond by presenting and suggesting problems, and responding to the respondent's response to the presentation of the oral assessment competency scoring system, high-performance competency according to competency development stages and capacity retention Compared with the response behavior of the subjects, the response behaviors of the evaluators are recorded in an unattended scoring evaluation sheet by classifying them into tangible grades in advance as an observable measurable action scale indicator (이) that can be measured by the oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system. The verbal competency evaluation grading evaluation system enables unattended automatic recognition, so that the verbal competency evaluation scoring system does not need to have an oral presentation capability evaluation evaluator or interviewer, and responds to the respondents who have observed the recognition of cafera and micro The behavior is compared and analyzed with the response behavior scale markers recorded on the unmanned grade evaluation sheet for oral presentation competency evaluation, and the same or the most appropriate response behavior among the behavior scale markers of the unmanned grade evaluation sheet recognized by the oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system is evaluated. By selecting the recorded behavior scale automatically and unattended by the machine, it enables an objective scoring evaluation that can distinguish the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level with only one question presentation, oral presentation competency evaluation evaluator or It is a scoring evaluation paper that enables unattended automatic scoring method of oral presentation competency evaluation that mechanically evaluates the capabilities of the evaluator without the need for an interviewer.

The inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring paper is objectively and efficiently low cost that can discriminate the subject's competency development stage and competency holding degree with only one question presentation without an oral presentation competency evaluator or interviewer. The ability of the evaluator to promptly realize the mechanical unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation, which enables the recruitment to be promoted by evaluating the talent with the highest competency required by the organization based on the standards that all the evaluators can agree to. It is a scoring evaluation paper capable of an unmanned automatic scoring method, which includes an objective mechanical unmanned automatic scoring evaluation technique that can discriminate the developmental stage and the level of competency holding with only one question.

The biggest difference between the present invention and the invention in the existing competency evaluation and interview evaluation is that the existing invention Ask a question In contrast, it is a method of discriminating competency according to the number of correct answers, whereas the present invention Even as a question The main difference is the ability to discriminate between competencies.

1. Abstract subjective value judgment scale of prior patent

In general, the organization selects the human resources required by the organization through various procedures such as document review, written examination, interview review, and competency evaluation.

As the evaluator's ability to perform work has recently emerged as an important element of the organization's human resources, in recruiting and promoting the evaluator, as well as document review, written exam, and interview review, competency evaluation provides behavior, situation presentation, question presentation, The importance of verbal competency evaluation, which evaluates the competency of the evaluator, that is, the future possibility, is being highlighted by making a presentation that requires the respondent's response as a method of presenting a problem and observing the reaction behavior.

However, the evaluation method in the existing general interview or the existing oral presentation competency evaluation has used human subjective judgment. Existing prior patents 101491012, 101286944, 101235292, 100440615, 101144998, 100445942, 1020090129671, 1020020084564, 1020030094749, 1020080066913, 102014005442, 1020100089586 The scoring evaluation papers of Ho et al. have used the scoring evaluation method based on human subjective judgment techniques.

2. Dissatisfaction with the subjective evaluation scale of the preceding patent

So, when a behavior appears in the respondent's response behavior, how much is the ability to evaluate (e.g., empathy capacity), and whether the behavioral evidence that the behavioral evidence is weakly revealed? There were no specific objective behavioral indicators or criteria for assessing the extent to which the evidence of behavior was found to be at an excellent level, and because it was determined by the subjective judgment of the evaluator or interviewer, there were many differences in evaluation scores between evaluators and interviewers. There were many complaints and originality of the subjects.

This human subjective judgment technique brought dissatisfaction with the subject's dissatisfaction and oral presentation competency evaluation system.

Existing, human subjective judgment techniques used by prior patents include the verbal competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer, which evaluates the behavior of the respondent to the behavioral presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation of the verbal evaluation evaluator or interviewer. Because the individual judged subjectively, the interpretation of behavior observation or observation behavior was subjective, and the score deviation between the evaluator or interviewer for the same reaction behavior was large.

In addition, the existing human subjective judgment technique is subjectively judged and evaluated by the evaluator or the interviewer in response to the respondent's request for responding to the respondent's response request by means of behavior presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation. In addition to the limitations of not being able to objectively and automatically and efficiently conduct unattended scoring assessments, this inevitably led to the limitations of failing to achieve the purpose of evaluating and hiring the best talent required by the organization.

The reason for using only the subjective judgment technique of human beings has been systematically researched and established for the response behaviors of high-performance competents regarding behavior presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation as individual evaluation tasks of oral presentation competency evaluation. Individual oral presentation competency evaluation behavior presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation, which did not reflect research results on differences in human behavior change stages of competency development, were presented. This is because the oral presentation competency evaluation test tasks that could not be organized by evaluation competency and competency retention were presented.

The inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring paper can be used for oral presentation competency evaluation scoring evaluation without an oral presentation competency evaluator or interviewer, and also provides the ability to evaluate the candidate's competency development stage and competency retention level only once. Since it is possible to perform mechanical unmanned automatic scoring evaluation, which introduces an objective mechanical behavioral measure that can discriminate, it is possible to achieve objectivity and fairness. Verbal presentation that enables objective mechanical unattended scoring evaluation of oral presentation competency evaluation, which can achieve efficiency, speed, and autonomy, to distinguish the candidate's competency development stage and competency retention level with just one question presentation It is a scoring evaluation paper capable of unattended automatic scoring.

In addition, since the scoring method of the general interview or the existing oral presentation competency evaluation requires the physical or cognitive observation, interpretation, and judgment behavior of the evaluator or interviewer, it is not possible to conduct oral presentation competency evaluation for many respondents at the same time. However, the evaluator had to wait for a long time, and the time for conducting oral presentation competency was limited.

Patent registration 101491012 Interview questions and evaluation papers Patent Publication No. 1020030094749 Human resource competency evaluation system and its operation method Patent registration No. 100440615 Human resource capability evaluation system and its operation method Patent Publication No. 1020110072647 Capacity assessment evaluation system and method for human resource development Patent registration No. 1020090129671 Capacity assessment evaluation system and method for human resource development Patent registration No. 101144998 Server system for competency inspection and capability inspection method Patent registration No. 101286944 Competency evaluation method and record carrier recording competency evaluation program Patent registration No. 100445942 Capacity building method Patent registration No. 101235292 Human resource competency evaluation system and method Patent Publication No. 1020100089586 Infant behavior observation evaluation method Patent Publication No. 1020020084564 Internet-based virtual interview system and its method Patent Publication No. 1020080066913 Computerized oral language ability evaluation Interview system that recommends suitable jobs by grasping personality and aptitude of Japanese Patent No. 2018-010501 (January 18, 2018) Patent Publication No. 1020140055442 Automatic scoring device and method Japanese Patent Publication No. 2008-191842 Evaluation Survey Device and Evaluation Survey Method Patent Publication No. 1020160082648 Support system and method for organizational business flow management and competency evaluation

Young-Kwang Kim, Oral Presentation (Competency Assessment High Score Know-how 1), 2017. Competency Assessment Research Center. Insoo Oh and 1 other person. “Structural competency-based hiring interview system: theoretical considerations and development examples”. Human Resource Development Research. Korean Human Resource Development Society. June 2002, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.49-75. Jin Jong-soon. “A study on how to improve the effectiveness of civil service competency evaluation”. Administrative Debate. Seoul National University Graduate School of Public Administration. 2009, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 139-163. Change the recruitment culture with AI. ZDNet Korea, [online], November 22, 2017, Internet: <URL:http://wwwzdnetcokr/news/news_viewasp?artice_id=20171122170606&from=Mobile>-Interview with non-cognitive propensity through games

1. Subjective evaluation scale of leading patents

A, Examples of the subjective abstract value judgment scale of the preceding patents

grade Prior patent
No. 101491012 Prior patent
100440615 Prior patent
1020090129671
1020110072647 Prior patent
101144998
1020100089586 Prior art literature Prior patent
101286944 Prior patent
100445942 Prior patent
No. 101235292 0 points I rarely do that. 1 point There is little evidence of behavior. Sometimes they do that. Not at all. Not at all. Extremely
Inadequate Sluggish Extremely
lowness Extremely
Inferiority 2 points Increased behavior is weakly revealed. Often do that. Not like that. Not like that. Inadequate Inadequate lowness Inferiority 3 points Some evidence of behavior is revealed. Usually, they do that. is average. usually usually usually usually 4 points Evidence of behavior is clearly revealed. I do that often. Yes. Yes. Great Great height Great 5 points Excellent evidence of behavior is revealed. Most do it. it really is. it really is. Extremely
Great eminence Extremely
height Extremely
Great 6 points Always do that.

I. Score difference occurs between the evaluator or the interviewer, which is the limitation of prior patents

In the prior invention, there is no specific objective behavioral scale on the evaluation sheet that can distinguish whether the level of response behavior is very high (5 points) or insufficient (2 points).

For the same response behavior, one evaluator or interviewer may judge that the competency is high, and another evaluator or interviewer may judge that the capability is low, so the objectivity of evaluation is not objective because there is no objectivity of evaluation. , This is an evaluation that is impossible to mechanize and requires the participation of an evaluator or interviewer to decide how many levels.

This is because, in the preceding invention, the results of research on differences in human behavior by stages of competency development and the degree of competence retention are not combined with the oral evaluation competency evaluation scoring paper.

2, specific objective action scale

end. Difference between abstract subjective value judgment scale (prior patent) and specific objective behavior scale (application invention)

division Capability evaluation of prior patents Invention of this application Evaluator, interviewer need Unnecessary
Evaluation method
Subjective measure An objective measure Abstract scale Concrete scale Value Judgment Scale Behavior Measurement Scale Mechanical objective scoring impossible possible Physical work need Unnecessary Cognitive judgment need Unnecessary Unattended scoring impossible possible Calculate the mechanical statistics of your score possible possible 100440615, 101286944, 101235292, 101144998,
100445942, 1020090129671, 1020020084564, 1020030094749, 1020080066913, 102014005442, 1020100089586, 2008191842

Previously, the competency evaluation scoring paper was written in abstract subjective terms such as 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 or very high, high, medium, low, and very low.

The evaluation sheet for the competency evaluation of the present invention, "I don't think it's vacant." (0 point step), "I'm sorry if I left a lot of seats. I have a lot of meetings." (1 point step), "I have a lot of seats. It was empty. There were a lot of outings. Sorry." (2 point step), "I was very tired because I left the room. I'm not going to leave next time." (3 point step), "I was very uncomfortable because I left the place. You did a good job on your own without an exaggeration.” (4 point step), “I would have been very uncomfortable because I was away. I did a good job without you. You also have exaggeration skills. I have enough qualities to promote. "(5 points step)

It is characterized by being described as a specific objective reaction or expressive action.

Therefore, in the application invention, a specific objective measure of behavior, rather than a subjective measure of value, is specified, so whether this behavior or expression occurred, Yes, No or On. Since it is possible to evaluate by simply checking Off, there is no need to participate in an evaluator or interviewer, and mechanization and automation are possible.

I. Example of specific objective measures

As a situational situation that can be evaluated, when a subordinate decided to say to the boss, "Why do you keep leaving your office these days?"

1) Among the respondents' predictable response behavior, they are only expressing their intention to deny the superficial opinions of the other party, and their ability to grasp the intention of the other party is low. Since the empathy capacity for the other person is also low, the behavioral response, in which the total communication capacity is evaluated as 0, "I don't think it was empty." Is determined by the behavioral response, and is recorded on the score sheet for oral presentation competency evaluation.

2) Of the respondents' predictable response behavior, only the intention of acknowledging the opinion of the other party is expressed, and the intentional ability of the other party is 1 point. The behavioral response of 1 point for empathy and 1 point for total communication capacity is, "I'm sorry if I've left a lot of seats. I have a lot of meetings." Is determined by the behavioral response, and is recorded in advance on the score sheet for oral presentation competency evaluation.

3) Among the respondents' predictable response behaviors, they only acknowledge the other's opinions and express their intention to apologize, and the other's intention grasp is 2 points and sympathy is 2 points. Reaction, "I've been away a lot. There were a lot of outings. Sorry." Is determined by the behavioral response, and is recorded in advance on the score sheet for oral presentation competency evaluation.

4) Among the respondents' predictable response behaviors, they are expressing their intention of sympathy toward the other person's feelings and communicating problems, so that the other person's intentional competencies are 3 points. The behavioral response with 3 points of empathy and a total communication capacity of 3 points, "I've had a hard time leaving my room. I will not empty it from next time." Is determined by the behavioral response, and is recorded in advance on the score sheet for oral presentation competency evaluation.

5) Among the respondents' predictable response behaviors, they communicate with each other's feelings of sympathy and praise of the other's actions, so that the other's intentional competencies are 4 points. The behavioral response of 4 points of empathy and 4 points of total communication was said, "I was very uncomfortable because I was away. I did a good job alone without exaggeration." Is determined by the behavioral response, and is recorded in advance on the score sheet for oral presentation competency evaluation.

6) Among the respondents' predictable response behaviors, they communicate with the other person's feelings of empathy and praise of the other person's actions, so that the other person's intention grasping ability is 5 points and the empathy ability is 5 points. The behavioral response, which is rated by this 5 point, said, "I would have been very uncomfortable because I was away. You did a good job without me. You also have exaggerated abilities. There are enough qualities to promote." Is determined by the behavioral response, and is recorded in advance on the score sheet for oral presentation competency evaluation.

3. Prior Patent 1 (Registration Patent Publication No. 10-1491012 (2015.02.09.)), Prior Patent 2 (Patent Publication No. 1020030094749 (2003.12.18)) to Prior Patent 10, Prior Patent 11 (Patent Registration) No. 1020020084564), difference from non-patent document 2, non-patent document 3

end. Technological progress of the invention of the prior patent

1) Invention of application that does not require an evaluator or interviewer

The invention of the application is not something that can be easily invented by a person having ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which this invention belongs before the application. It's not just a simple design change.

The inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring paper is based on prior patent 1, prior patent 11, prior patent 2 to prior patent 10, non-patent document 2, and non-patent document 3, according to the stage of competence development, human behavior by competency level As a result of the research on the difference in the form of change, the present invention is possible only if the research results on how the performance characteristics of high-performance workers are expressed in the individual task situation of oral presentation competency evaluation are included.

If a person with ordinary knowledge could easily invent in the technical field to which this invention belongs, an interview or competency evaluation without participation of an evaluator or interviewer would have been invented and commercially used decades ago.

However, interviews and competency evaluations are still being conducted with the participation of the evaluator or interviewer at a high cost. Judging from these facts, oral presentation competency evaluation without an evaluator or interviewer is not an invention that can be easily invented by a person skilled in the art to which this invention belongs.

In the meantime, in order to evaluate the competencies that the evaluator or interviewer wants to evaluate, they did not know exactly what situation to present to the evaluator to accurately discriminate the evaluator's competency. This is because there is a lack of skills to discriminate how the behavior of the respondents differs from the impact on the presentation in the competency evaluation task depending on the degree of competence of the evaluator.

It is the technical progress of the present invention that enables the oral presentation competency evaluation without the participation of an evaluator or interviewer by materializing and objectively evaluating the evaluation process performed in the head of an oral presentation competency expert on the oral presentation competency scoring evaluation sheet.

In the prior invention, evaluation of the degree of competency development holding is not possible through the graded evaluation sheet of the preceding invention, and it is possible only through the cognitive analysis stage of the evaluator or interviewer who collects and analyzes the graded evaluation sheet.

In the prior invention, the discrimination of the level of competency development possible in the analysis stage of the evaluator or interviewer is already implemented in the scoring evaluation paper in the invention of the application, so the participation of the evaluator or interviewer is not required. This is evidence of an evaluation technique.

Part of the 60 central departments, such as the Patent Office, destination, blue, circle, room, senior officials only promotion test, exaggerated promotion test, open position recruitment test, the officer promotion test of municipalities, Commissioner promotion exams etc. committee, executives of public companies Although the competency evaluation is carried out in the promotion test, executive promotion test, executive promotion test of private large companies, and executive promotion test, these national institutions, public enterprises, and large companies have huge budgets and excellent technicians, but they are all the same as the present invention. As it has not been possible to build a scoring evaluation sheet with automatic capability discrimination , it still uses a lot of budget, a lot of manpower, and a lot of time, and is carrying out competency evaluation by the direct face-to-face method of competency evaluators and test takers.

If the present invention is an invention that can be easily made by ordinary engineers through design changes or configuration changes, national institutions, public enterprises, and large companies with huge budgets and excellent engineers would have made the same as the first invention . . However, since the present invention is an invention that requires technical progress, not an invention that can be easily created by ordinary technicians, even national institutions, public corporations, and large corporations possessing excellent technicians have not yet invented, and still have a lot of budget and A lot of manpower and a lot of time are used, and the competency evaluation is conducted by the direct face-to-face method of competency evaluators and test takers.

2) Prior invention, which is useless without an evaluator or interviewer

In the competency evaluation scoring evaluation paper based on the preceding invention, what kind of behavior is the behavior corresponding to each evaluation scale level, what kind of behavior is the observed behavior, and how much is the behavior corresponding to this scale level? With regard to behavioral perception, the competency evaluation scoring system is unknown, and it is possible only with the cognitive judgment of the evaluator or interviewer.

Therefore, the preceding invention is a scoring evaluation sheet for useless objects that cannot function at all without an evaluator or interviewer, but the application invention is a scoring evaluation sheet that can perform a scoring evaluation function by a machine even without an evaluator or interviewer. In which technological progress is recognized.

I. Difference between prior patents (prior patent 1 (No. 10-1491012), etc.) and the present invention

1) Difference between presence and absence of evaluator or interviewer

Prior Patent 1, Prior Patent 2 to Prior Patent 14, Non-Patent Document 2, and Non-Patent Document 3 are scoring evaluation methods in which an evaluator or interviewer must exist, and the invention of the application is mechanical without the need for an evaluator or interviewer. This is an unattended evaluation method.

The objective of evaluation was aimed at the purpose of all evaluation techniques to measure human capability for thousands of years, but in the evaluation of the subject's experience and knowledge, that is, in the evaluation of knowledge, some objectification and mechanization have been performed.

In the field of competency evaluation to measure the degree of human future potential, that is, competence, it still relies on human subjective judgment. Thus, prior patents such as prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, and prior non-patent documents such as non-patent document 2 (low, normal, excellent) and non-patent document 3 are also very poor in ability, It relied on a method of evaluating by subjective value judgment scales such as poor, moderate, excellent, and very good, and failed to use a specific objective action scale label for the difference in the shape of human behavior according to the stage of competency development and competency.

However, the invention of the application is advanced in the existing method by using a specific objective behavioral indicator for the difference in the form of human behavior according to the capability development stage and the level of capacity retention, in the evaluation of human capability, that is, the degree of future possibility. Unmanned automatic scoring evaluation by mechanized objectification is now possible.

2) There is a difference in the possibility of unattended mechanization of scoring evaluation

Prior Patent 1, Prior Patent 2 to Prior Patent 14, Non-Patent Document 2, and Non-Patent Document 3 are the scoring evaluation papers that are not possible to automate the mechanization of scoring evaluation, and the invention of the application is the scoring evaluation paper that can be automated unmanned mechanization. There is a big difference, and the technical invention and specificity of the invention of the application exist.

The parts that can be mechanized and automatized in the preceding patents 2 to 10 and 14 are not the scoring evaluation part, but only the calculation processing part after evaluation, which is a part other than the scoring evaluation.

Prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, non-patent document 2, and non-patent document 3 require subjective value judgment of the evaluator or interviewer, so the evaluation evaluator or interviewer must be present. It is an invention in which it is impossible to automatically and unattendedly evaluate the scoring with a machine without an evaluator or interviewer. However, since the invention of the application does not require the subjective judgment of the evaluator or interviewer, it is an evaluation method that enables mechanical and unattended scoring evaluation without the need for an evaluator or interviewer.

3) Difference between past experience, present knowledge evaluation and future possibility evaluation

Prior patent 1, prior patent 10 to prior patent 14 are related to general interviews, and the invention of the application relates to competency evaluation.

Prior patent 1 and prior patent 10 to prior patent 14 are related to a general interview in which an interviewee wants to measure only the past experience or present knowledge of the evaluator. It's about evaluation. In the area of knowledge evaluation, which evaluates past experience or current knowledge, unattended automation of objectification of scoring evaluation has already been made, but in the area of capability evaluation, which evaluates the degree of future possibility, objectification mechanization has not been achieved.

In the area of knowledge evaluation and competency evaluation, since the content and the object to be evaluated are different, the evaluation method and the judgment of the progress of evaluation technology are also different, so it is impossible to judge both.

Prior Patent 1, as in the prior patent 10 until the preceding patent 14 on the experience and current knowledge of the evaluation of the past is to evaluate pipyeonggaja how to know whether scoring, pending invention has been evaluated grading Do you know pipyeonggaja how you speak about the competency assessment Is to do. Prior patent 1, prior patent 10 to prior patent 14 and the invention of the application are different in the knowledge evaluation area and competency evaluation area, so it is judged that both are the same technology area with only one fact that both use scoring evaluation paper. I can't.

Prior patent 1, prior patent 10 to prior patent 14 are to evaluate the existence or absence of the knowledge of the evaluator's past experience or present knowledge, while the invention of the application develops to the stage of scoring the evaluation to the extent of the evaluator's capability, that is, the future possibility. In the sense that both have different technical fields, the application invention is an advanced evaluation method because the evaluation technology is much more developed than prior patent 1 and prior patent 10 to prior patent 14.

4) There is a difference between the evaluation scale itself and the commentary for the scale judgment.

Since the application invention is recorded by classifying the respondents' various responsive behaviors into specific objective behavior scale indicator grades by using specific objective behavior scale markers for human behavior morphological differences according to competency development stages and capacity retention levels. By observing what reaction behavior, and providing a specific objective behavioral scale indicator to the evaluator to find out how many grades of development and retention of the competency to be evaluated correspond to, the competency evaluation scoring evaluation system of the verbal competency evaluation scoring evaluation system On the other hand, it is a high-level evaluation method that has developed into a step that enables unmanned automatic scoring evaluation by mechanization by recognizing the contents of the scoring evaluation sheet.

Prior Patent 1 uses a verbal expression that assists the subjective judgment of the evaluator or interviewer by describing the scale of the evaluator's rating of the reactor's behavior as almost, weak, to some extent, clear, excellent, etc. Patent 1 is still a low-development evaluation method that requires intervention by the evaluator or the interviewer's subjective judgment.

Prior patent 1 (almost, weak, to some extent, clear, excellent), prior patent 11 (almost, sometimes, often, mostly, often, most, always), and non-patent document 2 (low, moderate, excellent) This is a step that does not become a measure itself because it is not possible to measure competency and to measure only when a human being capable of subjective judgment is involved.

Since the invention of the application records the scale itself, which can be measured only by the recorded content itself, without the need for additional human subjective judgment, both have significant differences in the evaluation technology stage.

Prior Patent 1 is a commentary on the 1-point scale, showing little evidence of behavior, 2 points showing a slight increase in behavior, 3 points showing some evidence of behavior, 4 points clearly showing behavior evidence, The 5 point is a commentary on the scale by revealing excellent evidence of behavior,

Prior patent 2 and prior patent 3 are commentary on the 0-point scale, rarely do such actions, 1 point sometimes does so, 2 points often do so, 3 points do so , 4 points often do that, 5 points mostly do it, 6 points always do that, etc.

Non-Patent Document 2 is a commentary on the scale of 1 point, insufficient, 2 points on average, 3 points on excellence, etc.

Outstanding patents (Excellent) in the scoring evaluation papers of Non-Patent Document 2, from Prior Patent 1, Prior Patent 2 to Prior Patent 14, observe the response behavior of the evaluator and show how much the evaluator has the competency to evaluate. A specific objective action to determine whether it will be evaluated as a rating (5 point rating), or how the competency will be revealed by observing some other reaction behavior of the evaluator, and whether the action evidence that it is revealed is poor (less rating) There is no scale indicator, so it is not possible to objectively evaluate the scoring by simply evaluating the scale on the scoring evaluation sheet in Non-Patent Document 2 from Prior Patent 1, Prior Patent 2 to Prior Patent 14, and the evaluator or I have no choice but to rely on the interviewer's subjective judgment. It does not include the results of research on the difference in the types of changes in human behaviors according to the stages of competency development and the degree of competency retention in prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, and non-patent document 2 and non-patent document 3 This is because you cannot create an objective measure of behavior.

Therefore, the application invention should include research results on how the behavioral characteristics of high-performance performers are expressed in the task situation of oral presentation competency evaluation as a result of research on differences in human behaviors according to competency development stages and competency levels. Since it is possible to produce a specific objective behavior scale cover, it is not possible to easily construct the application invention by prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, and non-patent document 2 and non-patent document 3.

Therefore, it cannot be judged that the application invention is only a simple design change according to the concrete implementation of the respondent's answer from the prior patent 1, the prior patent 2 to the prior patent 14, and the non-patent document 2 and the non-patent document 3.

If a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which this invention belongs can easily invent before the filing of the invention of the application, there have been hundreds of patents from prior patent 1 to prior patent 16, non-patent document 2 to non-patent document 3, etc. Of course, while the patents were registered, it would have been included in the preceding patent.

Unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system that does not require an evaluator or interviewer cannot be easily invented by a person with ordinary knowledge in the competency evaluation technology field to which this invention belongs.

Application invention Prior patent 1 (see claims 1, 2 and figure 2) Reaction behavior storage part
This is a part recorded by classifying the reaction behaviors that can appear in the respondents into mechanical specific objective behavioral indicator grades according to the competency development stage.It is an objective scoring evaluation that can be automatically and mechanically unattended and automatically evaluated without the need for an evaluator or interviewer's intervention. Paper. This section describes the main/detail questions and the evaluation scale (almost, weak, to some extent, clear, excellent) to confirm the competency according to the experience/situation of the respondent, and the evaluator or interviewer explains (almost, weak, It is a subjective evaluation that requires a subjective procedure to read, interpret, and judge to some extent, clear, excellent), and it is impossible to mechanized unmanned automatic scoring. Objective
Scoring This is an objective scoring section that selects items that match the response behavior from the behavioral indicators recorded on the unattended scoring evaluation sheet.It is possible to automatically evaluate the unattended evaluation sheet by mechanically evaluating it, so an evaluation without an evaluator or interviewer is required. being. This is a part to select the rating according to the evaluation scale commentary (almost, weak, to some extent, clear, excellent) for the main/detail questions, and the evaluator or interviewer explains the scoring paper (almost, weak, to some extent, clear, This is an evaluation that needs to be read and interpreted and judged additionally. An evaluation or interviewer is an essential evaluation. difference The invention of claim 1 discloses that the level of competency development and competency retention are categorized and recorded as mechanical specific objective action scale indicator grades.

5) There is a difference between the prior patent 1, the prior patent 2 and the prior patent 14, the non-patent document 2 and the non-patent document 3 scale explanation and the application invention scale itself.

Table 5 of the invention of the application is a table comparing the evaluation scale of the preceding patent 1 and the scale of the application invention itself.

Commentary on the evaluation scale of precedent patent 1 (almost, weak, to some extent, clear, excellent), prior patent 2 (almost, sometimes, often, mostly, often, most, always), and non-patent document 2 (poor, moderate, excellent) The grading evaluation based on is still based on the subjective judgment of the evaluator or interviewer, so objectification of the grading evaluation has not been made, so grading evaluation by machine is impossible and unattended automatic grading evaluation by mechanized evaluation is also impossible. Evaluation.

Only by the scale commentary (almost, weak, to some extent, clear, and excellent) of the preceding patent 1, it was judged that the behavioral evidence that the evaluator had the ability to be evaluated and how much the evaluator had the capability to be evaluated was observed. (5 points), and specific objective actions to observe whether the respondent's behavioral evidence of observing some other reaction behavior of the evaluator is rated as weak (less), There is no scale.

In addition, only the scale commentary (almost, sometimes, often, mostly, often, most, and always) of the preceding patent 2 observed that the behavior of the respondent was observed, and the behavioral evidence that the evaluator had the ability to be evaluated was often revealed ( There is no specific objective measure of behavior to determine whether to evaluate (2 points) and to evaluate the response behavior of the evaluator, and to evaluate how competent they are and how often they evaluate the behavioral evidence that they are revealed (4 points).

In addition, with only the scale commentary (non-standard, excellent, excellent) of Non-Patent Document 2, what reaction behavior of the evaluator was observed, and the behavioral evidence that the evaluator had the competency to be evaluated was insufficient (2 points)? In addition, there is no specific objective measure of behavior by observing another respondent's response behavior and assessing how competent they are and whether they will evaluate (4 points) that the evidence of behavior is excellent.

In the evaluation of oral presentation competency, the evaluation of the competency level of the evaluator still has to rely on the subjective value judgment of the evaluator or interviewer, so that prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, non-patent document 2, non-patent document 3 Pursued objectification of scoring evaluation, but did not go to the stage where objectification of scoring evaluation was achieved.

Therefore, the application invention is an evaluation method in which technical progress exists from prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, and non-patent document 2 and non-patent document 3.

6) The invention of the application is a scoring evaluation technique at a stage of advanced development in terms of evaluation function compared to non-patent document 2 and non-patent document 3 from prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14.

In order to advance from the stages of the prior patent 1, the prior patent 2 to the prior patent 14, the non-patent document 2, and the non-patent document 3 to the stage of the invention of the application, the human behavior of the development of human competency by development stage and competency retention As a result of research on the difference in the form of change, the research results on how the behavioral characteristics of high performance workers are expressed in the task situation of oral presentation competency evaluation must be combined. Only then will it be possible to produce a specific objective behavioral indicator so that it can progress to the application stage.

Interview evaluation or competency evaluation of non-patent document 2, non-patent document 3, prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14 without results of research on the difference in human behavior change pattern by competency development stage and degree of competency retention Is a scoring evaluation method that has no choice but to rely on the personal subjective valuation evaluation of the evaluator or interviewer, so it is not possible to perform an objective mechanical unattended automatic scoring evaluation.

Prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, non-patent document 2, and non-patent document 3 are impossible to mechanize unattended scoring evaluation and require the intervention of subjective value judgment of evaluator or interviewer. Therefore, it was difficult for the evaluator to evaluate the oral presentation competency.

7) Differences between non-patent document 2 and non-patent document 3

Prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, non-patent document 2, and non-patent document 3 are also aimed at objectification of scoring evaluation for evaluation purposes as in the invention of the application.

As for the scoring evaluation of the preceding patent 1, what reaction behavior of the evaluator was observed, and whether the behavior evidence that the evaluator had the capability to be evaluated was revealed to be excellent level (5 point rating), or another evaluation subject It is impossible to automate unmanned because there is no specific objective behavioral scale that can be determined by observing the reaction behavior and assessing how competent it is and whether the behavioral evidence that it has been revealed is weak (2 point rating).

In addition, as for the scoring evaluation of the preceding patent 2, what reaction behavior of the evaluator was observed, and whether the behavior evidence that the evaluator had the capability to be evaluated was revealed frequently (4 point rating), and what other response of the evaluator Unobservable behavior is not possible because there is no specific objective measure of behavior to determine how competent you are and whether you will rate your behavioral evidence that it is often revealed (two-point rating).

As for scoring evaluation in Non-Patent Document 2 only, what kind of response behavior of the evaluator was observed, and what kind of competency evidence that the evaluator had the competency to be evaluated was revealed (4 point rating), and what other of the evaluator It is impossible to automate unmanned because there is no specific objective measure of behavior that can be assessed by observing the reaction behavior and assessing how competent it is and whether the behavior evidence that it has been revealed is insufficient (21 points rating).

Therefore, prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, non-patent document 2, and non-patent document 3 still remain in the stage of relying on the subjective value judgment of the evaluator or interviewer without specific objective measures of behavior. Is staying at a stage where the objectification of

The invention of the application observes the response behavior of the evaluator, and then provides the evaluator with a specific objective behavioral scale indicator of the stage of development of the competency to be evaluated and how many grades of competency hold it, thereby making technological progress in terms of objectification of scoring evaluation. Therefore, it is in the stage of reaching the mechanization and unmanned automatic evaluation of scoring.

8) Differences between objective evaluation objectives and effectiveness

Since the invention of the application was made from prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, and technical advances were made in the purpose and effect of scoring evaluation than non-patent document 2 and non-patent document 3, prior patents in prior patent 1 and prior patent 2 were made. Until 14, non-patent document 2, non-patent document 3, the invention of the application can not be easily derived, precedent patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, non-patent document 2, non-patent document 3, step of competency development, As a result of research on differences in the types of changes in human behavior according to the degree of competency retention, it is possible to produce a specific objective behavioral scale indicator only when research results on how the behavioral characteristics of high performance workers are expressed in the task situation of oral presentation competency evaluation are combined. Therefore, it is possible to implement competency evaluation technology at the application invention stage.

Therefore, the invention of the application properly achieved the objective evaluation objectives and effects, but prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, non-patent document 2, and non-patent document 3 pursued the objective of objective evaluation but did not reach the stage of objective evaluation. It is not possible to achieve the objectives and effects of objective evaluation because the evaluation is only possible when subjective value judgment of the evaluator or interviewer is involved.

9) Significance of the specificity or effect of the purpose in the invention of the application

The invention of the application observes the response behavior of the evaluator, and then provides the evaluator with a specific objective behavioral scale indicator that shows the stage of development of the competency to be assessed and how many grades the competency holds. It is possible to reasonably evaluate competency and realize the objectives and effects of effective and reliable oral presentation competency evaluation,

Prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, non-patent document 2, and non-patent document 3 are aimed for the purpose and effect of conducting interview evaluation and capability evaluation objectively and reasonably effectively.

As for the scoring evaluation of the preceding patent 1, what reaction behavior of the evaluator was observed, and whether the evaluator showed that he/she had the competency to be evaluated and the behavior evidence that the evaluator was revealed to be excellent (excellent) level, and whether the evaluator was evaluated It is impossible to automate unmanned because there is no specific objective measure of behavior to observe whether there is any ability to observe any other behavioral behavior, and to evaluate whether the behavioral evidence that the behavioral evidence that it has been revealed is poor (less than 2).

In addition, as for the scoring evaluation of the preceding patent 2, what reaction behavior of the evaluator was observed, and whether the behavior evidence that the evaluator had the capability to be evaluated was revealed frequently (4 point rating), and what other response of the evaluator Unobservable behavior is not possible because there is no specific objective measure of behavior to determine how competent you are and whether you will rate your behavioral evidence that it is often revealed (two-point rating).

In addition, as for the scoring evaluation of Non-Patent Document 2, whether the behavioral evidence that the evaluator has the ability to be evaluated and how well the behavioral evidence that the evaluator is evaluated has been revealed by observing the response behavior of the evaluator (4 points rating) It is impossible to automate unmanned because there is no specific objective measure of behavior to observe what kind of competence is observed, and whether the behavior evidence of lack of behavioral evidence will be evaluated (2 point rating).

Therefore, prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, non-patent document 2, and non-patent document 3 cannot derive the objective and effect of objectification of scoring evaluation, and still rely on subjective value judgment of the evaluator or interviewer Therefore, it remains in the subjective stage of scoring evaluation.

Therefore, prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, non-patent document 2, and non-patent document 3 can not be evaluated for oral presentation competency evaluation scoring without an evaluator or interviewer. Since it is possible, the specificity of the purpose or the salience of the effect clearly exists.

All. Sintering

The invention of the application cannot be easily invented by a person skilled in the art according to the prior patent 1, the prior patent 2 to the prior patent 14, and the non-patent document 2 and the non-patent document 3, and the prior patent 1, the prior patent 2 to the prior patent 14 , Non-Patent Document 2 and Non-Patent Document 3, as a result of research on differences in human behavior change patterns according to competency stages of competency development, how the behavioral characteristics of high-performance workers are expressed in the task situation of oral presentation competency evaluation Only when the results of the Korean studies are combined, can a specific objective measure of behavior be produced, so the invention of the application is possible, so its technological progress is recognized. Therefore, the invention of the application is not easily constituted by prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, and non-patent document 2 or non-patent document 3.

4. Difference between precedent patent 10 and prior patent 15 (general interview evaluation) and application invention

1) Prior patents 10 to 15 are evaluation methods that are not applicable to competency evaluation.

Prior patents 10 through 15 are suitable for quantitative evaluation centered on evaluation of past experience or present knowledge, so objective, mechanical, and electronic scoring of knowledge experience can be automatically and unattended, but future possibilities are possible. It is a scoring evaluation method that cannot be applied from prior patent 10 to prior patent 15 in subjective evaluation and qualitative evaluation as well as competency evaluation to evaluate the degree of competency. Therefore, the preceding patent 10 to the previous patent 15 are scoring methods that cannot be applied to the oral presentation competency evaluation, which is a detailed method of competency evaluation. Prior patent 11 is a practice system for interview type only, which is capable of discriminating the degree of retention of past experience or present knowledge, but not the stage of development of competency or the degree of competency retention.

2) Difference between past experience or present knowledge evaluation and future competency evaluation

Prior patents 10 to 15 are related to general interview evaluation, and application invention relates to competency evaluation.

Prior patents 10 to 15 refer to general interview evaluations to measure the amount of past experience or present knowledge of the appraisers, and the invention of the application relates to the appraisal of capabilities to evaluate the competency of the appraiser, that is, the degree of future possibility.

Prior patents 10 to 15 refer to evaluation of the amount of past experience or present knowledge, and evaluate how much the evaluator currently knows, and the invention of the application relates to competency evaluation, which evaluates how much the evaluator knows how to do in the future work. Is to do. Therefore, both the prior patent 10 and the prior patent 15 targeting the general interview evaluation and the application invention targeting the competency evaluation differ because the content and target to be evaluated are different, so the evaluation method and judgment of the evaluation technology's progress are different. You cannot judge the same.

Prior patent 10 to prior patent 15 can evaluate the amount of past experience or present knowledge of the evaluator, and the evaluation area of past experience or present knowledge is a technical area in which the objective mechanization mechanization of scoring evaluation has already been achieved. The invention of the application is the invention of the competency evaluation area that can evaluate the degree of future potential of the evaluator, that is, competency.

Previously, in the competency evaluation area, it was an evaluation area where the objective mechanization and unmanned automation of scoring evaluation could not be achieved. It cannot be concluded that both the general interview evaluation area and the competency evaluation area are the same technology area.

Prior patents 10 to 15 remained in the stage of evaluating the presence or absence of the subject's past experience or current knowledge, while advancing the application invention to the stage of evaluating the capability of the evaluator to the extent of future possibility. In both, the technical fields are different, and the application invention is an advanced scoring evaluation method because the evaluation technology is much more developed than from the previous patents 10 to 15.

(1) Evaluation targets for general interview evaluation (prior patent 10 to prior patent 15)

The general interview evaluation for college students evaluates how much they know the knowledge of the high school curriculum, and the general interview evaluation for college students evaluates how well they know the major knowledge of the curriculum taught in college, and general for candidates for promotion. The interview evaluation focuses on evaluating how well you've done your job so far and how much you know about your expertise.

(2) Evaluation target of competency evaluation (application invention)

The competency evaluation for college entrance exams evaluates the degree to which students have the ability to perform well in college after college, and the degree to which the competency is developed. Or, after becoming a civil servant, it is to evaluate the degree of competency and the degree of development of the ability to achieve high performance in the performance of the job in a position in the workplace. After being promoted to a higher level, such as a manager or a high-ranking public official, how much capacity do they have to achieve high performance in the job performance of the positions of a high-ranking officer, manager, or high-ranking public official? It is to evaluate how developed the competency is.

(3) Evaluation competency that is the subject of competency evaluation

The competencies to be evaluated in the oral evaluation competency evaluation scoring paper of the present invention, which is a scoring evaluation method in the competency evaluation area, are largely divided into accident competency, relationship competency, and work competency.

These competencies are subdivided. The thinking competency is further subdivided into policy planning competency, strategic thinking competency, non-presentation competency, and integrated thinking competency.

The related competencies are divided into communication competencies, coordination and integration competencies, motivational competencies, teamwork formation competencies, and conflict management competencies.

The work capability is divided into change management capability, performance-oriented capability, organizational capability, and problem-solving capability.

These detailed competencies are also divided into lower detailed competencies. Communication skills are divided into, for example, listening competencies, empathy competencies, pseudo-expression competencies, intention grasp compliments, and compliment competencies.

5. Prior Patent 11 (No. 1020020084564, 2010.08.12), Prior Patent 12 (No. 1020080066913, 2008.07.17.), Prior Patent 13 (Japanese Patent Publication No. 2018-010501, 2018.1.18), Non-Patent Document 4 and Application Difference of invention

1) Difference in grading evaluation method between the prior patent 11 (No. 1020020084564, 2010.08.12) and the invention of the application (capacity evaluation)

Prior Patent 11 uses a method of evaluating whether the keyword is included in the respondent's response by the keyword extraction method and the number of keyword extraction, so it may be suitable for evaluating the amount of past experience and present knowledge, but it may It is an inadequate scoring evaluation technique to be used as a scoring evaluation method for oral presentation competency evaluation that evaluates potential competencies.

2) Difference between precedent patent 12 (No. 1020080066913 (2008.07.17.)) and application invention

Prior Patent 12 compares the language of the best answer with a predetermined response language, and calculates the number of syllables, words, and phrases included in the response language that match the content of the answer in the best answer. It is different from the applied patent in that it evaluates

(1) The invention of the application differs in that it is a tool for evaluating the capabilities of human potential, whereas the prior patent 12 is a tool for evaluating the refreshment of the amount of past experience or present knowledge. Therefore, the prior patent 12, which evaluates the refreshment of the amount of past experience or present knowledge, is an invention of a different technology level from the invention of the application, which evaluates the capability of the future.

(2) Since the invention of the application is a tool for evaluating various types of behaviors in which the candidate's expression behavior varies depending on the competency development stage, the prior patent 12 for evaluating language ability according to the refreshment of coincidence of the same expression behavior depends on the competency development stage It is a scoring evaluation method that is insufficient to be used for competency evaluation in which expression behavior evaluates various reaction behaviors. Therefore, the prior patent 12 is an invention of a different technology level from the invention of the application.

3) Differences in technological progress of the quantitative method of analysis results

Prior patent 11 and prior patent 12 disclose the technical idea of initiating scoring evaluation by the system as in the invention of the application, providing an interview question to the user through the system, and quantifying the analysis result in response to the question (claim) 1 and FIG. 1), the quantization method of the analysis results of the prior patent 11 and the prior patent 12 is a keyword extraction method, so it is possible to grasp only whether the keyword is included, the number of extractions, and the order, and the prior patent 11 and prior patent 12 are used for quantitative evaluation. This is a scoring method that cannot be applied to competency evaluation centered on qualitative evaluation in a suitable way. Prior Patent 11 and Prior Patent 12 are methods that are suitable for scoring of past experience or current knowledge in quantitative evaluation with low technical level. It is a scoring evaluation method that is difficult to apply to the evaluation of oral presentation competency, the invention of the application.

Prior patent 11 and prior patent 12 are systems suitable for evaluation based on past experience or current knowledge. Prior patent 11 and prior patent 12 have functional differences in terms of application invention and purpose, and competency development stage, which is an evaluation of future possibilities. It does not have the capability to discern the degree of competency retention. The invention of the application is an evaluation technology that has much more advanced technological advances than the previous patents 11 and 12 in terms of evaluation function.

In order to obtain the functions of the unattended automatic oral ability evaluation scoring system by applying the evaluation methods of the preceding patents 11 and 12, the change of human behavior by development stage and competency retention level for human capability development As a result of research on differences, research results on how the behavioral characteristics of high performance performers are expressed in the task situation of oral presentation competency evaluation must be additionally combined with prior patent 11 and prior patent 12, so that it is possible to produce specific objective behavioral scale signs. To do.

Since the technology of the invention of the application can be realized only when the production technology of the behavior scale cover capable of discrimination of capabilities is included, the invention of the application is a stage in which the technology cannot be realized only by a simple design change in which the ordinary engineer exerts ordinary creative ability.

4) Insufficient grade evaluation function completion of prior patent 11

Prior patent 11 can only serve as an auxiliary function for formal practice of an interview, and does not have the appropriateness and effectiveness of competency evaluation to handle the scoring evaluation function, rating discrimination function, selection function, etc. of the competency of the evaluator through the interview. It is a system that is not working. Therefore, since the prior patent 11 cannot be evaluated for the content of the interview, it is a system that allows only formal practice of the interview. Therefore, the inventor of the prior patent 11 says that it is a system for interview practice rather than an interview evaluation system.

Prior patent 11 and prior patent 12 are not enough scoring skills to handle competency discrimination in competency evaluation, especially in discussions, conversations, and interviews.

5) Prior patent 13 (Japanese published patent information Special 2018-010501 (2018.1.18), Non-patent Difference between Document 4 and the invention of the application

(1) Difference between personality and aptitude interviews and competency evaluation interviews

How long can the application invention be made at a future point in time Is there Compared to evaluating competency, prior patent 13, Non-patent literature 4 is that the difference is that it is a test to identify personality Yes All.

Determine whether the recruiting institution has the proper propensity and aptitude for the job needs Recruitment It is a way to decide.

You may think that disposition and competence are similar, but not necessarily the same concept. For example, prior patent 13, which examines propensity and aptitude, Non-patent literature 4 is an interview system that evaluates whether you are a person with a strong tendency to like English. Well done To assess who is Sheath This is Tham. It is different from the tendency to like English and the ability to speak English well. It is possible that a person who likes English tends to speak English well, but it does not necessarily match the rating of someone who likes English well and who speaks English well. Some people like English, but some people don't speak English well.

The personality and aptitude test of whether you are a person who likes English is possible only with low-level evaluation skills, but the evaluation that discriminates how well you speak English is an evaluation area that requires a higher level of skill.

Therefore, it is at a level that requires technological progress with a higher capacity evaluation than a tendency analysis interview. There are many institutions that are selected online through interviews, but organizations that evaluate online competency in promotion competency evaluation that discriminates competency are not yet available. Nonexistent That's why.

(2) Difference between prior patent 13 (Japanese Patent Application No. 2018-010501, 2018.1.18)

Prior patent 13 is the candidate's social introversion, Immunity General aptitude and computational power, etc. Professional knowledge It is an interview system that determines the suitability for a desired job and presents recommended jobs such as managerial, sales, and cleaning jobs by grasping the professional aptitude.

Prior Patent 13 is an interview system that identifies the personality and aptitude by observing the candidate's response, gesture, facial expression, and body shape, and selects and recommends the job with the most similarity and aptitude required by the desired occupation.

The present invention and the prior patent 13 are similar in terms of the evaluation method through observation of the candidate's response, gesture, facial expression, and body shape, but the prior patent 13 is an interview system that grasps the candidate's propensity and aptitude through the response method . , In the responsive content It focuses on the problem-solving content contained in it and differs from the invention of the application for evaluating the problem-solving ability, and the technology level is also a technology area at a level lower than the technology level of the application invention .

For example, the prior patent 13 is to determine whether a test taker with a friendly personality is observed by observing a gesturing response, facial expression, and body shape, whereas the application invention focuses on the content of the response and observes the test taker, and the candidate has high empathy The difference is in evaluating accreditation. The level of technological progress to judge whether a person is a kind person is different from the level of technological progress to assess whether a person has a high level of empathy. The evaluation of empathy is much higher than that of a kind personality judgment.

(3) Non-patent literature Difference between 4 and application invention

Non-patent literature 4 is the risk sensitivity, aggressiveness, Strategy In order to grasp the non-cognitive inner tendencies such as sincerity, and seek employment from organizations that want to recruit, Recruitment It is a way to decide. This is an interview method that discriminates the intensity of personality or tendency.

The evaluation target of Non-Patent Document 4 also analyzes the candidate's expression, voice tone speed, and frequency of vocabulary use. Since it is to grasp the propensity through the form of communication, there is a difference in skill level from the competency evaluation that evaluates the problem-solving content in communication .

It is an evaluation method to grasp personality or propensity Non-patent literature The technical level domain is different from the present invention, which evaluates by discriminating 4 and competency.

6. Difference between precedent patent 14 (No. 1020140055442 (2014.05.09.)) and application invention

1) Prior patent 14 is a scoring program, not a scoring program

In the prior patent 14, when the evaluator or interviewer inputs the subjective evaluation score of the evaluator or interviewer into the computer, the computer system automatically tunes the score of the biased distribution given by the evaluator or interviewer to the standard deviation by the program of the preceding patent 14 As it is a program that presents the adjusted scores to test takers, the prior patent 14 is a score adjustment program, not a scoring program, and is a subjective evaluation tool that requires an evaluator or interviewer at the scoring stage. Therefore, it differs from the invention of the application, an objective evaluation tool.

2) Prior patent 14 is not a scoring program, so it is a different technology area

Prior patent 14 is a scoring program, not a scoring program. Therefore, the prior patent 14 and the invention of the application are different areas of technology. The score adjustment technology area is a technology area that can be automatically converted by a calculated and adjusted program.

3) Prior patent 14 is a method required by an evaluator

In addition, the prior patent 14 is a program that must input the score subjectively evaluated by the evaluator or interviewer in the scoring step, and the prior patent 14 which requires the application invention and the evaluator or interviewer, which is an objective evaluation tool that does not require the evaluator or interviewer Is an invention of different skill level.

7. Differences from previous patent 15 (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2008-191842, 2008.08.21.)

1) Overview of Prior Patent 15

Prior Patent 15 is a location where a visitor who visited the Toyota Motor Vehicle Showroom approaches the vehicle. It is a device that estimates the probability of a vehicle purchase by a visitor by examining the direction, the time spent by the car, whether the car door is opened or closed, whether or not the car is on board, and the device operation record inside the car.

2) Difference between prior patent 15 and application invention

(1) Differences in evaluating skills between action and action

Prior patent 15 is a method of calculating the vehicle purchase probability according to the refreshment of the number of times for the specific behavior, and is not a method of calculating the purchase probability according to the method of execution of individual behavior, so the technological progress is less than the invention of the application. .

Prior Patent 15 is a technology-level invention that can discriminate only two action stages, one that does not occur and one that occurs, depending on whether or not a specific action has occurred, so that the behavior caused by the evaluator among a number of actions to be evaluated is generated. in the assessment of points to assign a score based on the percentage of times the other hand, it requires a number of proposed actions, filed invention, but only one question presents a variety of reaction behavior appear different depending on the capacity development stages in the technology that can be evaluated in several steps Alone As it is possible to evaluate , only the second stage can be discriminated, so it is a graded evaluation technique level that is much more advanced than the prior patent 15, which is a technical level that requires multiple action presentations .

(2) Differences between general evaluation and competency evaluation and technical differences

Prior patent 15 is a program that calculates the probability of occurrence of a single action of purchasing, while only one question is asked about the degree of development and retention of the capacity that the human being of the application invention is likely to achieve the successful action by expressing the future capability. The difference between the prior patent 15 and technical progress is that it can be discriminated even by the presentation.

3) Specific examples of differences between the prior patent 15 and the invention of the application

(1) Insufficient identification of difference in purchase probability according to opening and closing method

In order for the prior patent 15 to follow the technological progress of the invention of the application, rather than calculating the purchase probability depending on whether or not the door of the car is opened or closed, more technology is advanced, and according to the method of opening and closing the door of the car, the opening and closing method with a purchase probability of 15% Behavior, opening and closing method with 30% purchasing probability, opening and closing method with 45% purchasing probability, opening and closing method with 60% purchasing probability, opening and closing method with 75% purchasing probability, and purchasing probability It should be classified as 90% open/close behavior.

For example, if the visitor opens the car door by way of A, the probability of purchasing a car is 15%, if the door of B is opened by car, the probability of buying a car is 30%, and by way of C, the car purchase probability is 45. %, the car purchase probability is 60% when the car door is opened by the method of D, the car purchase probability is 75% when the car door is opened by the method of E, and the car purchase probability is 90% when the car door is opened by the method of F. , We study how many percent each visitor's car purchase probability is according to each method of opening and closing the car door, reflecting the research results, classifying each action, and evaluating their discriminated actions. It is necessary to create a score evaluation paper that can be recognized, so that the prior patent 15 has the technological progress of the invention.

(2) Insufficient identification of difference in purchase probability according to the boarding method

As in the prior patent 15, rather than calculating the purchase probability depending on whether or not the vehicle is on the vehicle, the technology is more advanced, and according to the vehicle ride method, the behavior of the boarding method with a purchase probability of 15%, the purchase probability is 30%. It is divided into the behavior of the boarding method, the boarding method with the purchase probability of 45%, the boarding method with the purchase probability of 60%, the boarding method with the purchase probability of 75%, and the boarding method with the purchase probability of 90%. Must do.

For example, if a visitor rides a car by way A, the probability of purchasing a car is 15%, if a vehicle by way B, the probability of buying a car is 30%, and by way of C, the probability of buying a car is 45 %, the car purchase probability is 60% if you ride the car in the D method, the car purchase probability is 75% when you ride the car in the E method, and the car purchase probability is 90% when you ride the car in the F method. Based on the research method, the researcher examines how many percent each visitor's car purchase probability is according to each method of riding the vehicle, classifies each behavior to reflect the research results, and evaluates their differentiated behaviors. It is necessary to create a score evaluation paper that can be recognized, so that the prior patent 15 has the technological progress of the invention.

4) Technological progress

The invention of the application cannot be easily invented by a person skilled in the art according to the preceding invention, and in addition to the preceding invention, the research results on the differences in human behavior by stage of competency development and the degree of competency retention differ from the oral presentation competency evaluation scoring evaluation Since the application invention is possible only when a specific objective behavioral indicator is produced that can be combined with the paper and discriminate the degree of competency development and competency with just one action presentation, the application invention is recognized for its technological progress than the prior patent 15.

8. Difference between precedent patent 16 (Special Patent No. 1020160082648, 2016.7.8) and application invention

1) Prior patent 16 is not a scoring app.

Prior patent 16 is a support program for competency evaluation and a program to record and manage the results of competency evaluation. Prior patent 16 is not a scoring app.

Prior patent 16 is not a competency evaluation system, but also a support system for competency evaluation.

2) The technical scope of the application invention and the preceding patent 16 are different.

From the application invention and prior patent 1 to prior patent 15, it is a program for scoring evaluation. Therefore, the prior patent 16, which stores and manages the application invention and evaluation results, which are scoring evaluation programs, is a completely different technology area.

9. Conclusion

The feature of the present invention is the realization of unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation without an interviewer or evaluator. Therefore, the invention of the application is not the same technical field as the prior patents where an evaluator or interviewer must be present, but the technical field is different, and there is technical progress and specificity than previous patents in that scoring can be performed without an evaluator or interviewer. This is a stage of technology development that cannot be achieved by a person with ordinary knowledge in the competency evaluation technology field to which this invention belongs, by a simple design change according to a concrete implementation. In addition to the preceding patents, the application invention is the result of research on the differences in human behavior change patterns by competency development stage and competency level, and the research results on how the performance characteristics of high-performance workers are expressed in the task situation of oral presentation competency evaluation. The technical progress is recognized because the application invention is possible only when a specific objective behavior indicator is produced that can combine and discriminate the development and retention of competency with only one question presentation .

By combining the differences in the form of changes in human behavior by competency level and the level of competency development, and the behavioral characteristics of high-performance workers in oral presentation competency evaluation, the ability to develop and retain competency can be discriminated with only one question presentation. It is only the invention of this application that can provide a specific objective measure of action.

10. Challenges

Prior patent Invention of this application Existing competency evaluation Existing knowledge evaluation Evaluator or interviewer required need Unnecessary Unnecessary Evaluation method Subjective judgment scale Correct answer incorrect judgment Concrete objective measures Mechanical objective scoring Impossible (requires physical work) possible possible Unattended scoring Impossible (needs cognitive judgment) possible possible Document Box Technique Competency Assessment possible impossible possible Role Acting Competency Assessment possible impossible possible Oral presentation competency evaluation possible impossible possible Collective Discussion Competency Assessment possible impossible possible Competency evaluation interview possible Impossible (Interview with general knowledge experience) possible 100440615, 101286944, 101235292, 101144998,
100445942, 1020090129671, 1020020084564, 1020030094749, 1020080066913, 102014005442, 1020100089586, 2008191842

The purpose of the inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring paper is an economical and efficient electronic mechanical unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring that can be objectively and fairly evaluated simultaneously by multiple evaluators without an evaluator or interviewer. It is to provide an unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring evaluation paper that can distinguish the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level, which can be evaluated, with only one question presentation. The accuracy, fairness, and reliability of grading evaluations have fallen because existing general interviews or existing oral presentation competency evaluations are based on human subjective value judgments, and there have been many complaints from the evaluators due to the lack of consistency and objectivity between the evaluators or interviewers, As a result, there was high distrust in the oral presentation competency evaluation system.

In order to resolve the distrust of the human subjective value judgment technique in the existing oral presentation competency evaluation, the scoring evaluation technique of the oral presentation competency evaluation, the competency development stage, and the degree of competency retention are discriminated with only one question presentation Differences in value and interpretation between oral evaluative competency appraisers or interviewers for the same behavior of the respondents by using a scoring appraisal paper capable of automatic, mechanical, and unmanned automatic grading using the objective mechanical automated behavioral measure technique In order to improve the objectivity, reliability, and automaticity of evaluation by overcoming the difference in evaluation score according to the temporal situation of the evaluator or interviewer, and resolving the score deviation between the evaluator and interviewer.

The present inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring paper was invented to solve the problem of lack of objectivity unattended autonomy in the existing general interview or oral presentation competency evaluation evaluation technique. In addition, by presenting tasks that require respondents to respond by presenting behaviors, presenting situations, presenting questions, and presenting problems, the respondents' behaviors for responding to tasks are assessed, and the level of competency development and the level of competency are retained. The ability to possess competency development scores is assigned to each reaction behavior that can be discriminated even with the presentation of only one question, and graded with a specific objective behavior scale indicator to give the competency development retention scores. Recorded in the evaluation system, the behavioral indicator is automatically recognized by the machine without an oral presentation competency evaluator or interviewer, so that the unattended automatic oral presentation competency scoring and evaluation system recognizes cafera and micros By comparing and analyzing behaviors, it is possible to objectively assign only specific scores electronically and mechanically to specific response behaviors by automatically and unattended scoring of specific response behaviors, and at the same time, to evaluate multiple oral presentation competency evaluators It is an oral presentation competency evaluation scoring evaluation paper that enables objective mechanical unattended automatic scoring method that can discriminate the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level with just one question presentation.

The inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring paper records the respondent's respondable reaction behaviors in advance on the unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring evaluation sheet, assigns competency development retention scores, and the evaluator's competency development stage, competency retention degree Typed and scaled into a specific objective action scale indicator that can be discriminated even with only one question presentation, and recorded on the unmanned automatic oral presentation competency scoring evaluation sheet, so that it can be attached to the machine without an oral presentation competency evaluator or interviewer. The behavioral behavior indicator is automatically recognized by the unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system, and the behaviors of the respondents observed by the cafera and micro-recognition are recorded in the unattended automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring sheet in advance. By comparing and analyzing the scale markers, the unattended and automatically selected response behavior scale markers are selected and scored, thereby minimizing the scope for the subjective interpretation of the verbal competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer, making it more objective and efficient and rapid The purpose of this is to enable the realization of oral presentation competency, thereby selecting talents with the highest competencies required by the organization, and to employ them quickly and objectively, automatically and economically.

As a solution to this, the present inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring paper is preceded by unattended oral evaluation capability evaluation unmanned evaluation evaluation paper in order to increase the objectivity and reliability of oral presentation competency evaluation. In prior patents such as 100440615, 101144998, 100445942, 1020090129671, 1020020084564, 1020030094749, 1020080066913, 102014005442, 1020100089586, 1020110072647, and 1020160082648 Objective mechanical unmanned, which is produced by introducing a mechanical specific objective behavioral scale method that can discriminate the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level with only one question presentation, instead of the existing human subjective valuation scale method It is a scoring evaluation paper that can be used for automatic scoring.

The present inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring paper presents tasks to the respondent in a way that requests the respondent's responses to each action presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation for oral presentation capability evaluation, and presents the respondent's response request Evaluate the respondent's responsive reaction behaviors to the ability to classify the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level into objective and observable behavioral scale indicators that can be distinguished with only one question presentation. Unattended automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system is automatically unattended without the need to have an oral presentation competency evaluator or interviewer by assigning the retained scores and recording them in advance on the unattended automatic scoring evaluation sheet. Recognizing the cover sheet, the verbal competency evaluation scoring system compares and analyzes the respondents' behaviors observed with Cafera and Micro, with the response behavior scale markers recorded on the unmanned automatic scoring evaluation sheet to match or match the most appropriate response behavior scale. By selecting the cover and making it to evaluate the score, only the specific score is assigned to the specific response behavior of the respondent, so that the evaluator's competency development stage and the degree of competency retention can be discriminated with only one question presentation. As a scoring evaluation paper, it is a scoring evaluation paper capable of an unmanned automatic scoring method that minimizes the scope for subjective interpretation of an oral presentation competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer.

The present inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring paper is further developed in a subjective value judgment method based on human physical and cognitive thinking used in the existing oral presentation competency evaluation, and the present invention is an oral presentation competency evaluation evaluator or Reliable, economical, efficient and rapid oral evaluation capability evaluation scoring evaluation by automatically and electronically and objectively evaluating the oral and mechanical oral capability evaluation without an interviewer and accurately measuring the competency development stage and capacity retention level of the competency It is an oral presentation competency evaluation scoring evaluation paper that enables mechanical objective unattended automatic scoring evaluation, which can distinguish the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level by providing only one question.

The inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring paper can be distinguished from the existing oral presentation competency evaluation based on human subjective value judgment, and the ability of the evaluator to develop competency and level of competency retention with only one question presentation. Reliability and accuracy of oral presentation competency evaluation were improved by introducing and developing a grading technique based on the mechanical specific objective behavioral evaluation scale method.

Respondents' ability to respond to behaviors that can be assessed by responding to the subject's intrinsic competency, namely, behavioral proposals to assess the degree of future possibility, presentation of a question, and presentation of a problem that requires the respondent's response by means of problem presentation. The developmental stage and the level of competency retention are graded as a specific objective action scale indicator that can be discriminated even with the presentation of only one question, and the competency development retention score is given and recorded in the unattended automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring evaluation sheet in advance. As an objective, unattended automatic by an oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system that can discriminate between the competency development stage and competency retention level by presenting only one question without the need to have an oral presentation competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer Recognition is possible, and based on this, it is possible to evaluate the scores, so that the difference in value between the verbal competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer for the same behavior of the respondent, the difference in interpretation, and the deviation in the situation due to the difference in the situation are the same reaction The same score was always given for the behavior.

Unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation The score evaluation paper is used in the scoring evaluation method in oral presentation competency evaluation, without using the verbal and cognitive observation judgment interpretation or interpretation behavior of the oral presentation competency evaluator or interviewer. Objective Unmanned Automatic Oral Presentation Competency Evaluation Without a interviewer or interviewer, electronic objective mechanical unmanned automatic recognition of the response behavior scale and the response behavior of the evaluator can be performed, and the oral presentation competency evaluation can be realized through comparative analysis. This is an unmanned automatic document aggregative competency evaluation scoring paper that records a specific objective response behavior indicator, which is a mechanical objective unmanned automatic that can discriminate the competency development stage and the degree of competency retention with a single question. Oral presentation competency evaluation It is characterized by a scoring evaluation site containing oral presentation competency evaluation.

The inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation grading evaluation paper responds to the respondent in a method of action presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation to evaluate how much the evaluator has the level of capability or future potential required by the organization. The task presentation part (10), where the request presentation was recorded,

Objective objective that can discriminate the reaction behaviors that appear to the evaluator by presenting the respondent's response request through the method of behavior presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation, even with only one question presentation. The part (20) in which the reaction behaviors are recorded, which are recorded and graded on the unmanned automatic oral presentation competency scoring evaluation sheet by tying and classifying them into specific behavioral scale indicators,

Observation recognition by objectively unattended automatic recognition of cafera and micro by the unmanned automatic oral presentation competency scoring system, without the need for an oral presentation competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer This is an objective and specific behavioral scale marker on the evaluator's response behaviors and oral presentation competency evaluation scoring paper, and compares and analyzes the recorded behaviors to select the matching or most appropriate response behavior scale. The presentation competency evaluation scoring system consists of a mechanical objective scoring section (30), which evaluates and evaluates the competency development stage and competency retention level with a capability development retention score that can be distinguished with only one question presentation.

In verbal competency evaluation, a verbal competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer is a scoring evaluation method for respondents' response behaviors according to task presentations that require respondents to respond by means of behavior presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation. Without this, there is a feature of providing a scoring platform for oral presentation competency evaluation that enables a mechanically objective unmanned automatic scoring method that can discriminate the level of competency development and the level of competence held by the evaluator with only one question.

The inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring paper further develops from the existing human subjective value judgment method of oral presentation competency evaluation, without an oral presentation competency evaluator or interviewer, competency development stage, competency retention level By using a specific objective behavioral indicator that can be discriminated even with just one question presentation, it has been developed into a verbal ability assessment that enables mechanical and objective unattended scoring to improve the accuracy, reliability, and automaticity of evaluation.

The present inventor's unattended automatic oral competency evaluation scoring paper is used for organizational talent recruitment and promotion evaluation, and in the oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system, without a verbal competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer, presents a problem for oral presentation competency evaluation. Mechanical objective unattended scoring paper that can discriminate the stages of competency development and competency retention in a single question presentation in situation presentation, question presentation, behavior presentation, and the response behavior of the respondents Through this, it has the effect of automatically and objectively and reasonably evaluating the competency of the evaluator to realize effective and reliable oral presentation competency evaluation.

As the inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring paper, it not only secured objectivity, reliability, and fairness for oral presentation competency evaluation, but also secured economic, efficiency, speed, and unmanned automatic performance of oral presentation competency evaluation.

The unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring paper, in the oral presentation competency evaluation, is evaluated by methods such as behavior presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation to evaluate the competency of the evaluator, that is, the degree of future possibility. This is a specific objective action scale indicator that can be used to make a presentation requesting a response, and to discriminate the respondent's possible reaction behaviors in advance, and to distinguish the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level with a single question. Recognized and recorded on the unmanned automatic oral presentation competency scoring evaluation sheet, and without the need to have an oral presentation competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer, the response behavior indicator is automatically recognized by the oral presentation competency evaluation scoring evaluation system. The competencies of the published competency evaluation scoring system are automatically unattended and analyzed by comparing with the contents of the response behavior indicators recorded on the unattended automatic oral competency evaluation scoring paper in advance. It is configured so that it can be evaluated automatically and unattended to select the most appropriate behavioral scale indicator.

A specific objective behavioral scale that enables the unattended, automatic oral competency evaluation scoring system to discriminate the respondents' behaviors observed by cafera and micro-recognition with the ability to discern the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention with a single question. By making and providing a cover, it is possible to mechanically and objectively evaluate the unmanned automatic scoring of the subject's holding capacity,

Objective, reliable, efficient, economical, and unattended, realization of oral presentation competency evaluation that can discriminate the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level with just one question presentation. It has the effect of objectively and fairly evaluating talented people with the best competencies to be hired and promoted.

The existing oral presentation competency evaluation was to directly use the physical and cognitive judgment interpretation function of the competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer, so the evaluation could only be performed by a competency evaluation expert. Without the need to have an interviewer, verbal announcements are made with the present invention by enabling electronic mechanical scoring evaluation by objective unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation evaluation papers already made by the present inventors of competency evaluation experts. Competency evaluation is not only performed by competency evaluation experts. Anyone, even beginners, can use this application invention to easily and accurately evaluate the competency of an evaluator, and it is possible to perform scoring evaluation by the oral presentation competency evaluation scoring evaluation system without having to have an oral presentation competency evaluator or interviewer. By enabling mechanical and objective unattended scoring evaluation, personal deviations and errors of the oral evaluation competency evaluator or interviewer are eliminated, and reliability and objectivity can be accurately evaluated and the holding capacity of the evaluator can be scored. The evaluation time for evaluation was shortened, and there is no need to have an evaluator or an interviewer, so it is economical and quick to conduct an oral presentation competency at low cost.

Figure 1 is a subjective value judgment technique used by the preceding patents and the mechanical specific objective behavioral scale technique used by the present invention to discriminate the competency development stage and the degree of competence of the evaluator with a single question presentation. Comparison of comparison between prior patents and the present invention.
FIG. 2 is a scoring evaluation method for task presentation that requires the respondent's response in a method such as behavior presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation, which are presented in the oral presentation competency evaluation. This is a drawing showing the verbal competency evaluation scoring evaluation paper capable of mechanical objective unattended automatic scoring, which evaluates the score by using a mechanical specific objective behavior indicator that can discriminate the level of competency holding by only one question presentation.
3 is a block diagram of an unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system for implementing a scoring method of oral presentation capability evaluation according to an embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 4 is a block diagram of the server 100 of the unmanned automatic shoe presentation capability evaluation scoring system shown in FIG. 3.
5 is a configuration diagram of the capability development stage, capability retention degree classification system 300 of the unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring evaluation system.

With reference to the accompanying drawings an embodiment of the present invention will be described so that those skilled in the art can easily understand.

In describing the present invention in the following description, when it is determined that detailed descriptions of related well-known functions or known configurations may unnecessarily obscure the subject matter of the present invention, detailed descriptions thereof will be omitted.

1. Details

An embodiment of the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings.

The present inventors are able to provide mechanical and objective unattended automatic scoring evaluation of the subject's response requesting the respondent's response by methods of behavior presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation presented in the oral presentation competency evaluation. As shown in Figure 2, the oral presentation competency evaluation scoring paper

Task presentation that records the respondent's response behavior in the manner of behavior presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation to assess the extent to which the evaluator has the capability required by the organization, that is, the degree of future possibility. Part 10,

It is a mechanical objective and specific behavioral scale indicator that can discriminate respondents' behaviors according to behavior presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation according to the competency development stage of the evaluator with only one question presentation. The graded and recorded reaction actions (20),

Unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation The response behavior indicators of the participant's response behaviors, which were automatically recognized by the scoring evaluation system as unattended, and the part (20) in which the response behaviors were recorded in advance on the unmanned automatic scoring evaluation sheet By comparing and analyzing, selecting the matching or the most appropriate behavior scale indicator, the objective development of the competency is automatically unmanned by mechanically objective scoring that can distinguish the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level with just one question. Mechanical objective scoring part, which can determine the rating score of (30)

It consists of.

At this time, the level indicators of the level 20 of the reaction actions are recorded in the stages 5 to 6 as shown in FIG. 2, but the indicators can be divided into several stages. It is revealed that it belongs to the scope of the present invention.

In addition, the task presentation that requires the respondent's response behavior by the method of action presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation in the task presentation part (10) is presented in several types according to the evaluation competency to be evaluated by the evaluator. Here, even when presented in accordance with the detailed evaluation competency, the behavioral behavior indicator, the presentation of the situation, the presentation of the question, the presentation of the problem, and the response behavior indicator of the unmanned evaluation paper are different.

The part 20 in which the reaction behaviors are recorded is a development stage of the capability to evaluate through the reaction behaviors of the evaluator. Considering the difference in the type of change in human behavior according to the level of competency, it is categorized into 5 grades from high-performance competency response behavior (5 points) to low-performance competency response behavior (1 point), and various response behaviors are classified for each grade. Make a note of the covers.

The objective scoring section 30 that can mechanically discriminate between the evaluator's competency development stage and the degree of competency retention is recorded by the verbal competency evaluation scoring system by the cafera and micro perceptions of the respondent's response behavior. By comparing and analyzing the response behavior scale indicator of the portion 20, the matching or most matching response behavior indicator is selected and selected, and the grade to which the response behavior indicator belongs belongs is selected as the acquired competency grade of the subject.

An existing general interview or an existing oral presentation competency evaluation requires an oral presentation competency evaluator or interviewer, but the present inventor does not require an oral presentation competency evaluator or interviewer. The biggest difference is not.

2. Specific examples

The present invention will be specifically illustrated and described.

The oral presentation competency evaluation unmanned automatic scoring evaluation paper shown in FIG. 2 will be mainly described.

In the task presentation part (10), competency evaluation tasks are classified and recorded according to the content of the evaluation competency. For example, competency evaluation tasks are subdivided into competency names to be evaluated for each competency evaluation task, such as the category name of "relevant competency", the middle category name of "communicative competency", and the subcategory name of "community competency". And sorted.

Therefore, the oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system is conveniently selected from the list of tasks that classify the evaluation tasks into related categories, communication skills in the middle category, and empathy skills in the small category according to the required competency of the organization. Therefore, it can be evaluated by presenting the task to the evaluator.

In addition, in the task presentation part (10), the oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system provides behaviors that can best discriminate the degree of development and retention of a specific competency in order to observe and evaluate how much the specific competency is required by the organization. , Presenting tasks that require the respondents' response behaviors by way of presenting situations, presenting questions, and presenting problems.

Through this, we intend to evaluate how the evaluator has the competency required by the organization, that is, the degree of future possibility (promotion, competency required after entering the company) through observation of the respondent's reaction behavior.

For example, the following is an example of a situation presentation task or a question presentation task that can evaluate the small-scale empathy among the large-scale relational competency and the medium-class communication capability.

As a way of presenting the question, the unattended automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system is "I am your subordinate, and you are my supervisor. At this time, I am the subordinate or I am the subordinate to you. What do you say if you say it together?",

As a method of presenting the situation, the unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system is "I am your subordinate, and you are my supervisor."

"Professor, why do you keep moving away these days?"

And in the part (20) in which the reaction behaviors are recorded, according to the difference in the form of change of human behavior according to the development stage of the competency to be evaluated, the behavior scale indicator for each behavior scale and for each behavior scale of competency development and retention degree Mechanical objective verbal competencies by categorizing and classifying the respondent's responsive actions corresponding to the subject's competency development stage and competency retention level by a mechanical specific objective behavioral scale measure Evaluation Record in advance on the unattended scoring evaluation sheet.

For example, an example of the respondent's response behavior indicator for the situation presentation task for sympathetic competency, which is one of the subcommittees of communication competency, for example, one example of the response behavior indicator for each scale indicator Same as

-I don't think it's empty. (Negativeness of the other party's opinion -> 0 points of the other person's intention grasp. 0 points of empathy)

-I'm sorry if you left a lot. It is because there are many meetings. (Assuming recognition of the other party's opinions -> 1 point of understanding the intention of the other person. 1 point of empathy) -> 1 point ()

-I've been away a lot. There were many outings. Sorry. (Recognition and apology for the other party's opinions -> 2 points of intentional understanding of the other person. 2 points of empathy) -> 2 points ()

-It was very difficult because I was away. I will not empty it next time. (Empathy with the other person's feelings, problem solving -> The other person's intention grasping ability 3 points. Empathy ability 3 points) -> 3 points ()

-I was very uncomfortable because I was away. You did a good job alone without exaggeration. (Empathy for the other person's feelings, praise for the other person's actions -> The other person's intentional competencies 4 points, empathy ability 4 points) -> 4 points ()

-It would have been very uncomfortable for me to leave. You did a good job without me. After all, you have the ability to exaggerate. There are enough qualities to promote. (Expansion of the other person's feelings of empathy, praise for the other person's behavior -> 5 points of understanding the intention of the other person. 5 points of empathy ability) -> 5 points ()

As described above, the mechanical objective behavior that can discriminate the respondent's possible reaction behaviors for action presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation with the ability to discriminate the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention with only one question presentation It is scaled and graded and recorded in advance on the unmanned automatic scoring evaluation sheet.

Evaluation Capability Situation, questioning Specific objective measure of action Objective scale criteria grade Communication capacity
/
Empathy Task 1.

To your subordinates who are bosses
"Chief! Why do you keep leaving these days?"
When I said,
How do you answer? ① I don't think it's empty.
② Example 2 actions ~ Denial of the other person's opinion 0 points
() ① I'm sorry if you left a lot. It is because there are many meetings.
② Example 2 actions ~
③ Example 3 actions ~ Assumptions about the other person's opinion 1 point
() ① I've been away a lot. There were many outings. Sorry.
② Example 2 actions ~
③ Example 3 actions ~
④ Example 4 Action ~ Recognition and apology for the other person's opinion 2 points
() ① It was very difficult for me to leave. I will not empty it next time.
② Example 2 actions ~
③ Example 3 actions ~
④ Example 4 Action ~
⑤ Example 5 actions ~ Empathy with other people's feelings, problem solving 3 points
() ① I was very uncomfortable because I was away. You did a good job alone without exaggeration.
② Example 2 actions ~
③ Example 3 actions ~
④ Example 4 Action ~ Empathy for the other person's feelings, praise for the other person's behavior 4 points
() ① It would have been very uncomfortable for me to leave. You did a good job without me. After all, you have the ability to exaggerate. There are enough qualities to promote.
② Example 2 actions ~ Empathy with the other person's feelings and expansion of praise for the other person's actions 5 points
() Task 2. (Hereinafter omitted) (Hereinafter omitted) Task 3.
(Hereinafter omitted) Adjusted Integrated Capability Task 1. Task 2.
(Hereinafter omitted)

In addition, in the mechanical objective scoring section (30), the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level can be discriminated by only one question presentation.

Without the need to have an oral presentation competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer, the respondent's response behavior to the task presentation is automatically and unattendedly observed by the machine by the oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system by the machine, and the oral presentation capability Evaluation Scoring The evaluation system compares and analyzes the specific response behavior indicators recorded in the part (20) in which the reaction behaviors are recorded, and selects the grade level of the behavior indicator that matches or matches the respondent's response behavior, and is mechanically objective and unattended. , The rating is determined in such a way that the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level can be discriminated with only one question presentation.

3. Comparison between the subjective judgment scale of the preceding patent and the specific objective behavior scale of the present invention

However, prior patents 101491012, 101286944, 101235292, 100440615, 101144998, 100445942, 1020090129671, 1020020084564, 1020030094749, 1020080066913, 102014005442, 1020100089586 , 1020110072647, 1020160082648, the existing human subjective value judgment method based on the scoring paper method,

In the general interview or oral presentation competency evaluation, in evaluating the degree of empathy, which is one of the detailed competencies of communication competency, to the evaluator through the behavior of the respondent to the proposed task situation,

0 points: rarely do that.

1 point: There is little evidence of behavior (sometimes I do it. I don't do it at all. Very poor. Very inferior. I am poor. Very low.)

2 points: The increase in behavior is weakly noticed (often it does. It is not. Insufficient. Inferior. Low.).

3 points: Evidence of behavior is revealed to some extent (usually, such behavior is normal. Normal. Normal).

4 points: Evidence of behavior is clearly revealed (often such behavior, yes, excellent, high).

5 points: Excellent level of evidence of behavior is revealed (mostly such behavior. Very yes. Very good. Excellent. Very high.)

6 points: Always do that.

By using the value judgment scale of

Oral presentation competency evaluation The evaluator or interviewer has been subjectively evaluating and evaluating the behaviors of the respondents.

Prior patent
No. 101491012 Prior patent
100440615 Prior patent
1020090129671
1020110072647 Prior patent
101144998
1020100089586 Prior art literature Prior patent
101286944 Prior patent
100445942 Prior patent
No. 101235292 grade I rarely do that. 0 points There is little evidence of behavior. Sometimes they do that. Not at all. Not at all. Extremely
Inadequate Sluggish Extremely
lowness Extremely
Inferiority 1 point Increased behavior is weakly revealed. Often do that. Not like that. Not like that. Inadequate Inadequate lowness Inferiority 2 points Some evidence of behavior is revealed. Usually, they do that. is average. usually usually usually usually 3 points Evidence of behavior is clearly revealed. I do that often. Yes. Yes. Great Great height Great 4 points Excellent evidence of behavior is revealed. Most do it. it really is. it really is. Extremely
Great eminence Extremely
height Extremely
Great 5 points Always do that. 6 points

So, in the existing oral presentation competency evaluation, when the response behavior of the respondents showed what kind of sympathetic competency, there was little evidence of behavior (2 points), and another behavior appeared. There was no specific objective behavioral indicator or criterion to know whether there was a certain level of empathy and whether the behavior evidence that it was revealed was excellent (5 points). Because it was decided by, there were many differences in evaluation scores between evaluators and interviewers, and there were many complaints and originality of the respondents.

In addition, in the existing general interview or oral presentation competency evaluation, only the competency evaluation expert with professional insight can evaluate the extent to which the evaluator possesses the competency to be evaluated and how much evidence of behavior that he or she possesses. It was never easy for the evaluator and the outside public to succeed in evaluating the results of the evaluation because the evaluation and interpretation process of the scoring evaluation was included in the internal thinking process in the head of the evaluator or interviewer.

Therefore, the present inventor's unattended automatic oral competencies evaluation scoring paper is a subject presentation method that requires the respondent's response by means of action presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation of oral presentation competency evaluation, and development of competency The evaluator is evaluated by automatically and mechanically unmanned grading by providing an unmanned grading evaluation sheet that introduces a mechanical specific objective behavioral evaluation method that can discriminate the stage and competency holding degree with only one question. To enable the evaluation of competency possessed by unmanned, automatic, objective, reliable, fair, efficient, and economically, thereby objectively evaluating and recruiting and promoting talents with the highest competencies required by the organization. Effect.

Evaluation target
Detailed Capabilities Situation, questioning score Prior patent
(Subjective
Judgment scale) The present invention
(Specific objective action scale)
doctor
Communication
ability/
Empathy To your subordinates who are bosses
"Why do you keep away?"
When I said,
How do you respond? 5 points Stand out It would have been very uncomfortable for me to leave. You did a good job without me. After all, you have the ability to exaggerate. There are enough qualities to promote. 4 points Clearly I was very uncomfortable because I was away. You did a good job alone without exaggeration. 3 points To some extent It was very difficult for me to leave. I will not empty it next time. 2 points Appear weakly I've been away a lot. There were many outings. Sorry. 1 point Hardly ever I'm sorry if you left a lot. It is because there are many meetings. 0 points I don't think it's empty.

The existing general interview or oral presentation competency evaluation was conducted by the human subjective value judgment method, and it took a lot of cost and time, and selected only a small number of high-level managers or a small number of final candidates for small-scale candidates.

Part of the 60 central departments, such as the Patent Office, destination, blue, circle, room, senior officials only promotion test, exaggerated promotion test, open position recruitment test, the officer promotion test of municipalities, Commissioner promotion exams etc. committee, executives of public companies Although the competency evaluation is carried out in the promotion test, executive promotion test, executive promotion test of private large companies, and executive promotion test, these national institutions, public enterprises, and large companies have huge budgets and excellent technicians, but they are all the same as the present invention. As it has not been possible to build a scoring evaluation sheet with automatic capability discrimination , it still uses a lot of budget, a lot of manpower, and a lot of time, and performs capability evaluation by the direct face-to-face method of competency evaluators and test takers.

If the present invention is an invention that can be easily made by ordinary engineers through design changes or configuration changes, national institutions, public enterprises, and large companies with huge budgets and excellent engineers would have made the same as the first invention . . However, since the present invention is an invention that requires technical progress, not an invention that can be easily created by ordinary technicians, even national institutions, public corporations, and large corporations possessing excellent technicians have not yet invented, and still have a lot of budget and A lot of manpower and a lot of time are used, and the competency evaluation is conducted by the direct face-to-face method of competency evaluators and test takers.

Unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation by the present inventors The oral presentation competency evaluation can be performed quickly and automatically and unattended in large quantities at low cost with the scoring evaluation paper, so that it is possible to continuously perform industrial and employment evaluations and promotion evaluations. It is possible to perform it automatically and electronically and unattended without any intervention of interpretation and interpretation of the physical and cognitive observations of the oral evaluation competency evaluator or interviewer. It is now possible to take the test from the evaluator's home without going to the location of the evaluation enforcement agency.

10: Project presentation part
20: Reaction behavior recorded
30: mechanical objective scoring
100: server of unmanned automatic shoe presentation capability evaluation scoring system
140: audio and data analysis extraction part
150: video behavior analysis extraction part
160: Reaction behavior recording storage part
170: control part
180: execution part
190: Connection/transmission management part
200: PC and terminal of the evaluator who performs the oral presentation competency evaluation
210: monitor part
220: speaker section
230: program execution part
240: control part
250: recording storage part
260: transmitting and receiving part
270: camera part
280: microphone section
290: input device part

Claims (1)

In the unmanned automatic scoring evaluation paper for evaluating oral presentation competency that does not require an evaluator,
The method of action presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation can discriminate the stage of competency development of the evaluator and can discriminate how much the evaluator has the competency to evaluate with only one question presentation. The task presentation part (10), which presents tasks requiring the respondent's response behavior,
Responding behaviors that can appear to the respondent about the task presentation (10) by the method of action presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation, not the number or the subjective abstract judgment scale, but the level of competency development and capacity retention A part (20) in which objective concrete response behavior scales are recorded, graded and typed as mechanical objective concrete behavioral scale indicators that can be discriminated even by presenting only one question,
The objective behavior recorded on the unmanned automatic scoring evaluation sheet by observing the response behavior of the evaluator according to the presentation of the response request of the oral presentation competency scoring evaluation system automatically by the verbal competency evaluation scoring system By comparing and analyzing the specific response behavior scale indicators, select the objective specific response behavior scale indicators that match or best match , and do not need to have an oral presentation competency evaluator or interviewer, and an oral presentation competency evaluator Alternatively , the mechanical objective grading part enables mechanical objective unattended automatic scoring evaluation that can discriminate between the interviewee's subjective judgment and the competency development stage and competency retention level with only one question presentation. 30)
It consists of,
Oral presentation competency evaluation Score evaluation system is used to evaluate the content of the scoring evaluation sheet by using the scoring evaluation sheet written as a mechanical objective specific behavioral evaluation scale indicator so that the competency evaluation scoring evaluation system can recognize it. Characterized in that it does not require an oral presentation competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer, so that it can be scored in comparison with the reaction behavior of the observed subject with micro perception,
In the verbal competency evaluation, a mechanical objective unattended automatic scoring method that can distinguish the evaluator 's competency development stage and competency level without an oral presentation competency evaluator or interviewer with only one question presentation Evaluation paper.

Images