KR20200086793A - Oral presentation system for competency assessment - Google Patents

Abstract

An unmanned automatic system for grading and assessing competency for verbal announcement may increase the fairness, reliability, accuracy, and unmanned automaticity for assessment. The unmanned automatic system for grading and assessing competency for verbal announcement comprises: a portion in which a task is stored and suggested (110); a portion in which objective and specific response behavior measurers are stored (120); and a mechanical, automated, and objective grading portion (130).

Description

ORAL PRESENTATION SYSTEM FOR COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT}

The present inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system introduces a mechanical objective scoring evaluation technique that can discriminate the competency development stage and capacity retention level of the respondent in the oral presentation capability evaluation scoring evaluation system with a single question. Unattended automated scoring by one method is possible, so that the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level can be discriminated with only one question presentation without the need for a verbal assessment evaluator or interviewer. It relates to a computer program recorded on a recording medium for executing a mechanical objective unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring evaluation method on a computer.

The present inventor's unattended automatic oral competency evaluation scoring system is used to identify behaviors, situations, and questions in the oral presentation competency evaluation test task of the oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system to confirm the competency of the respondent. 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 behaviors in the oral presentation competency evaluation scoring evaluation system. Compared to competency's response behavior, unattended automatic oral presentation competency evaluation is graded by pre-typing the unpredictable response behavior of the evaluator into an actionable indicator that can be measured by the unattended automatic oral competency evaluation scoring system. By storing records in the evaluation system so that the unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system can be recognized automatically, the unattended automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring evaluation system is not required to have an oral presentation capability evaluation evaluator or interviewer. The response behavior of the participant observed by micro-recognition is compared and analyzed with the response behavior scale indicators stored in the unattended automatic verbal competency evaluation scoring system, and the part of the response behavior storage area recognized by the unattended automatic oral competency evaluation scoring system is recognized. Objective scoring is possible by automatically selecting the behavioral scale that records the same or the most satisfactory response behavior among the behavioral scale markers, and discriminating the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention degree with a single question The computer program recorded on the recording medium to execute the unattended automatic oral competency evaluation scoring evaluation method on the computer that mechanically evaluates the competency of the evaluator without the need for an oral competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer to be.

The inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system can objectively and efficiently cost-effectively discriminate the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level with only one question presentation without an oral presentation competency evaluator or interviewer. An evaluator who can promptly realize the verbal competency evaluation by electronic, mechanical, unmanned, and promptly, and thereby promotes recruitment and promotion by evaluating the talent with the highest competencies required by the organization based on the standards that all evaluators can agree to. A record to execute the objective mechanical unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring evaluation method on the computer, which includes the objective mechanical unmanned automatic scoring evaluation technique, which can discriminate the competency development stage and the degree of competency holding by only one question presentation It relates to a computer program recorded on a medium.

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 today's society, oral assessment competency evaluation conducted in the selection process for admission, recruitment, and promotion is becoming more important than ever before to secure outstanding personnel.

In general, the organization selects talents required by the organization through various procedures such as document review, recruitment test, interview review, and competency evaluation for recruitment.

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 degree of future possibility, is made more important by presenting tasks that require the respondent's response as a method of presenting the problem, and observing the respondent's response behaviors with Caffera and Micro. have.

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

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

So, when a reaction behavior appears in the respondent's response behavior, what kind of competence (e.g., empathy capacity) to evaluate, and whether there is a weak evidence of behavior, or when any other response behavior appears Since there was no specific objective behavioral indicator or criterion as to whether or not there was such a level of evidence that the behavior evidence was revealed at a superior level, and because it was determined by the subjective judgment of the evaluator or interviewer, the difference in evaluation scores for each evaluator or interviewer There were many, and there were many complaints and originality of the respondents.

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 evaluator or interviewer's response behavior to the respondent's response to the behavioral presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation of the verbal competency evaluator or interviewer. Because of this subjective judgment, the interpretation of behavioral observations and observational behaviors was subjective, resulting in a large difference in scores between evaluators or interviewers for the same reaction behaviors.

In addition, the existing human subjective judgment technique is subjectively judged by the evaluator or interviewer to evaluate the respondent's reaction behaviors for the task presentation that requires the respondent's response by methods of behavior presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation. As a result, not only the mechanical objective and efficient unattended automatic scoring evaluation is not limited, but, as a result, it is inevitable to have the limitation 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, presented as individual evaluation tasks of oral presentation competency evaluation. In addition, individual tasks such as action presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation of oral presentation competency evaluation, which did not reflect research results on differences in human behavior change at each stage of competency development, were presented, and the response behavior of the respondents This is because they presented the oral presentation competency evaluation test tasks that could not be organized by evaluation competency and competency level.

The inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system enables the oral presentation competency evaluation scoring evaluation without the 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. Based on the objective mechanical unmanned automatic scoring system, which introduces an objective mechanical behavioral measure that can be discriminated, the scoring is based on the objective mechanical unmanned automatic scoring system, so that objectivity and fairness can be achieved, and at the same time, many unattended electronic mechanically unmanned automatic scoring evaluations The objective mechanical unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring method that can distinguish the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level with only one question presentation, which achieves economic efficiency, efficiency, speed, and autonomy Is a computer program recorded on a recording medium for causing the computer to run.

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 behaviors of the evaluator or interviewer, it is not possible to simultaneously conduct oral presentation competency evaluation for a large number of respondents. 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 Organizational business flow management and capability evaluation support system and method

Young-Kwang Kim, Oral Presentation (Capacity Assessment High Score Know-how 1), 2011. 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
1020030094749 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 score sheet that can distinguish whether a certain level of response behavior is a very high state of competency (5 points) or a poor state of competency (2 points).

For the same response behavior, one evaluator or interviewer can judge that the competency is high, and another evaluator or interviewer can judge that the capability is low, so there is no objectivity of evaluation, so objectification of evaluation , This is an evaluation that is impossible to mechanize and requires the participation of an evaluator or an interviewer to decide how many levels.

This is because, in the preceding invention, the results of research on differences in human behavior by stage of competency development and the degree of competency retention are not combined with the oral presentation competency scoring 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 empty." (0 point step), "I'm sorry if I've left a lot of seats. I'm sorry for having a lot of meetings." (1 point step) There were a lot of outside business trips. Sorry."(2 point step), "I was very hard because I left the room. I will not leave from the next time." (3 point step), "I was very uncomfortable because I left the room. I did a good job alone without this.” (4 point step), “I would have been very uncomfortable because I was away. I did a good job without you. You also have exaggerated abilities. There are 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, etc., and it is recorded and stored in the oral assessment competency evaluation scoring sheet.

2) Of the respondents' predictable reaction 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 stored in advance in the oral assessment competency evaluation scoring sheet.

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 stored in advance in the oral assessment competency evaluation scoring sheet.

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 stored in advance in the oral assessment competency evaluation scoring sheet.

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 stored in advance in the oral assessment competency evaluation scoring sheet.

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 stored in advance in the oral assessment competency evaluation scoring sheet.

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 unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system 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, 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 conducted in the head of an expert in oral presentation competency evaluation.

In the prior invention, the evaluation of the degree of competency development retention is not possible through the grading 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 scoring evaluation sheet.

In the preceding invention, the discrimination of the degree of competency development retention possible in the analysis stage of the evaluator or interviewer is already implemented in the grading evaluation sheet in the application invention, so the participation of the evaluator or interviewer is not required. This is evidence of evaluation techniques.

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 the capability evaluation scoring evaluation system with the capability automatic discrimination function has not been established, the capacity evaluation is still being carried out by using the large- scale budget, a large number of people, and a lot of time , using the direct face-to-face method of the 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 papers based on the preceding invention, what kind of behavior is the behavior corresponding to each evaluation scale level, whether the observed behavior is the behavior corresponding to this item, and the degree of behavior corresponding to this scale level? Regarding cognition, 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 and evaluation system for useless objects that cannot function at all without an evaluator or interviewer, but the application invention is a scoring evaluation system that can perform an evaluation function by a machine even without an evaluator or interviewer. Technological progress is recognized.

I. Difference between prior patents (prior patent 1 (No. 10-1491012), etc.) and application 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 automatic unattended scoring without an evaluator or interviewer This is an evaluation method that can be evaluated.

The objective of evaluation was the purpose of all evaluation techniques to measure human capability for thousands of years, but the evaluation of the experience and knowledge of the evaluator, that is, objectification and mechanization were performed in knowledge evaluation,

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 patent documents such as prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, and prior non-patent documents such as non-patent document 2 (low, moderate, excellent), and non-patent document 3 are also very inadequate. Relying on the method of evaluating by the subjective value judgment scales of humans such as, poor, moderate, excellent, and very excellent, and using specific objective behavioral scale indicators for human behavioral morphological differences according to competency development stages and competency retention Could not.

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

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 scoring evaluation systems that are not possible to automate unattended scoring evaluation, and the invention of the application is a scoring evaluation system that can be automated unmanned scoring. The biggest difference is, the invention of the application is that technical progress and specificity exist.

From the previous patent 2 to the previous patent 12, the part where the previous patent 14 can automate mechanization is 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 an evaluator or interviewer. It is an invention that it is impossible to evaluate unmanned automatic scoring using only a machine without an evaluator or interviewer. However, since the invention of the application does not require subjective judgment by the evaluator or interviewer, it is an evaluation method that enables mechanical unattended automatic scoring evaluation without the 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, prior patent 10 to prior patent 14 are related to a general interview to measure only the past experience or the present knowledge of the appraisers, and the invention of the application is applied to the evaluation of the capability of scoring the candidates to the extent of their future possibilities. It is about. 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, prior patent 10 to prior patent 14 are for evaluating how much the evaluator knows about evaluating past experience or present knowledge, and application invention is about competency evaluation. Is to do. Prior patent 1, prior patent 10 to prior patent 14 and the invention of the application are different from the knowledge evaluation area and the competency evaluation area, so it can be judged that both are the same technology area with only one fact that both use the scoring paper. Can't.

Prior patent 1, prior patent 10 to prior patent 14 are the stages for scoring evaluation of the subject's past experience or present knowledge, while the invention of the application is to the stage of scoring the evaluation of the competency of the evaluator, that is, the degree of future possibility. In terms of development, both have different technical fields, and 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 uses the specific objective behavioral indicator for the difference in the shape of human behavior according to the competency development stage and the degree of competency retention, the respondents' response reaction behaviors are categorized into specific objective behavioral indicator grades and stored and recorded. After observing the response behavior of, a specific objective behavioral scale indicator is provided to the evaluator to know the stage of development of the competency to be assessed and the grade of competency retention. On the other hand, it is a high-level evaluation method that has been developed into a stage in which unattended automatic scoring evaluation by mechanization is performed by automatically recognizing the contents of

In the prior patent 1, the description of the scale for the rating of the reactor's behavior to the subject is described as almost, weak, to some extent, clear, excellent, etc., so that verbal expressions used to assist the subjective judgment of the evaluator or interviewer are used. , Prior Patent 1 is still a low-development evaluation method that requires subjective judgment intervention by an evaluator or interviewer.

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 (poor, moderate, excellent) It is a step that does not become a measure itself because it is possible to measure competency only by the explanation on the evaluation sheet, and only when human beings who can make subjective judgments are 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, as a commentary on the 1-point scale, shows little evidence of behavior, 2 points show slight increase in behavior, 3 points show some evidence of behavior, 4 points clearly show behavior evidence, The 5 point is an excellent level of 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.

Prior to Patent 1, Prior Patent 2 to Prior Patent 14, Non-Patent Document 2's grading evaluation paper observes the response behavior of the evaluator, and demonstrates how well the evaluator has the ability to be evaluated. A specific objective behavioral measure of whether to evaluate (5 points rating) as revealed, or to evaluate the response behavior of the evaluator, and to what extent they are competent, and whether the behavioral evidence that they are revealed is poor (less rated). Since there is no cover at all, from the previous patent 1, the prior patent 2 to the prior patent 14, it is not possible to objectively evaluate the scoring by simply explaining the scale in the scoring paper of Non-Patent Document 2, and in order to be able to evaluate the scoring, the evaluator or interviewer You have to rely on 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 an objective evaluation system that automatically and mechanically evaluates unattended automatic scoring without requiring the intervention of an evaluator or interviewer. . 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 meet the response behavior from the behavioral indicators recorded on the unmanned automatic scoring evaluation sheet.It is a scoring evaluation method that does not require an evaluator or interviewer to mechanically recognize and evaluate the scoring evaluation sheet by mechanical recognition. . This is the part of selecting the rating according to the evaluation scale commentary (almost, weak, to some extent, clear, excellent) for the main/detail questions. The commenter or interviewer explains the scoring paper (almost, weak, to some extent, clear, excellent) This is an evaluation that needs to be read and interpreted additionally and judged. This is an evaluation method that requires an evaluator or interviewer. Other differences 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 application invention is a table comparing the scale of the preceding patent 1 with 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) Since the grading evaluation based on is still based on the subjective judgment of the evaluator or interviewer, it is not possible to objectively evaluate the grading, so it is not possible to perform grading evaluation by machine and unattended automatic grading evaluation by mechanized evaluation. 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 behavioral behavior of the evaluator and observed the behavior of the evaluator, indicating that the evaluator has the ability to be evaluated. 2) There is no specific objective measure of behavior to determine whether or not to evaluate the response behavior of the evaluator, and to evaluate the ability of the competency and whether the behavioral evidence of frequent behavior was 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, and thus, prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, non-patent document 2, and non-patent document 3 Pursued objectification of scoring evaluation, but did not go to the stage of mechanized objectification of scoring evaluation.

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 the study on the difference in the form of change, it is only possible to combine the research results on how the behavioral characteristics of high performance performers are expressed in the task situation of oral presentation competency evaluation. Only then will it be possible to produce a specific objective behavioral indicator so that it can progress to the application stage.

Interview evaluations such as prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, non-patent document 2, and non-patent document 3 without reflecting the results of the study on the difference in human behavior change pattern according to competency development stage and competency level Alternatively, the objective mechanical unattended automatic scoring evaluation is not possible because the competency evaluation is a scoring evaluation method that is forced to rely on the personal subjective valuation evaluation of the evaluator or interviewer.

Prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, non-patent document 2, and non-patent document 3 cannot be mechanized and unattended in scoring evaluation, and the intervention of the subjective value judgment of the evaluator or interviewer is inevitable. Therefore, it was difficult for the evaluator to evaluate the oral presentation competency.

7) Differences between non-patent document 2, non-patent document 3, and prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, where unattended automation is not possible

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 grading evaluation of the prior 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 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 competency to be evaluated was frequently revealed (four-point rating), and another 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 the grading evaluation 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 revealed to be excellent (4 point rating), and another evaluation subject It is impossible to automate unattended because there is no specific objective measure of behavior that can be determined by observing the reaction behavior and assessing how competent it is and whether the behavior evidence that it has been revealed is insufficient (2 point 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. As a result, we have reached the stage leading to mechanization and unmanned automation of scoring evaluation.

8) Differences between objective evaluation objectives and effectiveness

The invention of the application is that technical advances have been made in the purpose and effect of scoring evaluation from prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, and non-patent document 2 and non-patent document 3. Prior invention 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, non-patent document 2, non-patent document 3, the invention of the application cannot be easily derived, prior patent 1, prior patent 2 to prior patent 14, non-patent document 2 , Non-Patent Document 3 combines the results of research on differences in human behavioral changes according to competency development stages and competency levels, and how the behavioral characteristics of high-performance workers are expressed in the task situation of oral presentation competency evaluation Only when it is possible to produce a specific objective behavior scale indicator, it is possible to implement the competency evaluation technology in 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 grading evaluation of the prior 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, or whether the evaluator was evaluated It is impossible to automate unmanned because there is no specific objective measure of behavior to observe what other reaction behaviors are and how much they are capable and whether the behavioral evidence that they have been revealed is poor (2 points).

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 competency to be evaluated was frequently revealed (four-point rating), and another 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, what reaction behavior of the evaluator was observed, and whether the behavior evidence that the evaluator had the competency to be evaluated was excellent (4 point rating), or another evaluation subject 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 development stages and competency levels, 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 the 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.

Since prior patents 10 to 15 are suitable for quantitative evaluation centering on evaluation of past experience or present knowledge, objective, mechanical, and electronic scoring of past experience or present knowledge can be performed unattended, , This is a scoring evaluation method that cannot be applied to prior patent 10 to prior patent 15 in subjective evaluation and qualitative evaluation as well as competency evaluation to evaluate the degree of future potential, namely 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 past experience or the amount of current knowledge of the appraisers, and the invention of the application relates to appraisals 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 ability to evaluate in the unmanned automatic oral presentation competency scoring evaluation system of the present invention, which is a scoring evaluation method in the competency evaluation area, is largely divided into accident capability, relationship capability, and work capability.

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 Application 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 and how many times the keyword is extracted by the keyword extraction method, so it may be suitable for evaluating the amount of past experience or present knowledge, but 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. We are not equipped with the ability to discriminate the level of competency holding with just one question. 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 maturity evaluation function of the preceding 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 literature Difference between 4 and application invention

(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 different in that it is a personality test.

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 for evaluating whether you have a strong tendency to like English, and competency evaluation is a system for evaluating how well you speak English. 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 higher than this. Technology Is required This is the evaluation area.

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 . , focused on solving the control information in response to problematic content, and may differ from the claimed invention to evaluate the problem solving competency, skill levels is also a technical area of the lower level than the technical level of the claimed 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, since the prior patent 14 is a program in which the evaluator or interviewer must input the scores subjectively evaluated, the patent application invention, which is an objective evaluation tool that does not require the evaluator or interviewer, and the prior patent 14 requiring the evaluator or interviewer, are different technologies. It is a level of invention.

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, whereas the invention of the application has various reaction behaviors that appear differently depending on the capability development stage. Since it is a technology that can evaluate multiple stages, it is a grade evaluation technique level that is much more advanced than the prior patent 15, which is a technique level that can distinguish only two stages.

(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, it is not a degree of calculating the purchase probability depending on whether or not the door of the car is opened or closed, but the technology is more advanced.

Therefore, according to the opening and closing method of the car door, the behavior of the opening and closing method with the purchase probability of 15%, the behavior of the opening and closing method with the purchase probability of 30%, the behavior of the opening and closing method with the purchase probability of 45%, the opening and closing method with the purchase probability of 60% It should be divided into the behavior of the opening and closing method with the purchase probability of 75% and the behavior of the opening and closing method with the purchase probability of 90%.

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 grading paper that can recognize this, but 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 grading sheet 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, research results on the differences in human behavior by stages of competency development and competency level are compared to the oral presentation competency evaluation scoring paper Combined with, the invention of the application is possible only when a specific objective behavioral scale indicator capable of discriminating the degree of competency development and competency is produced, so that the technical advancement of the application invention is recognized than that of 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.

The preceding patent 16 is not a competency evaluation system, but also a capability evaluation support system.

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

The application invention and prior patent 1 through prior patent 15 are evaluation scoring programs. 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 competency level, and the performance characteristics of high-performance workers in oral presentation competency evaluation, the ability to develop and retain competency can be distinguished with only one question presentation. It is only the invention of this application that can provide specific objective behavioral indicators.

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 objective of the present inventor's unattended automatic oral ability evaluation scoring system is an economical and efficient electronic mechanical unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring that can be objectively, fairly, and simultaneously evaluated by multiple respondents without an oral evaluation capability evaluator or interviewer. the computer recorded the storage medium for executing the evaluation methods, competence development stage of pipyeonggaja, too, unmanned automatic shoe that can discriminate a question presented in just the degree of reserve capacity once announced the introduction of competency assessment grading assessment method a computer program. Is to provide

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 Difference in value, interpretation difference, and evaluator between oral evaluative competency evaluator or interviewer for the same behavior of the respondent by using an electronic mechanical unmanned automatic scoring system that introduces an objective mechanical automated behavioral measure technique that can Or, by overcoming the difference in evaluation score according to the temporal situation of the interviewer, the score difference between the evaluator and interviewer will be resolved to improve the objectivity, reliability, and automaticity of evaluation.

The inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system was invented to solve the problem of lack of objectivity and unattended autonomy in the existing general interview or oral presentation capability evaluation scoring method. , actions proposed, given the situation, the question presented, presenting challenges that require pipyeonggaja react to problems presented, and only the degree of response actions pipyeonggaja reserve evaluation capacity development stage, capacity of the subject competence of pipyeonggaja for the proposed project 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 Efficiently, efficiently, and quickly, recording the recording medium to execute the objective mechanical unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring evaluation method on the computer that can distinguish the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level with only one question presentation It is a computer program.

The unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system records the respondent's responsive reaction behaviors in advance in the unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring evaluation system, assigns competency development retention scores, competency development stages, and competency retention It is classified into a specific objective behavioral scale indicator that can discriminate the degree by only one question presentation, and records it in an unmanned automatic oral presentation competency scoring evaluation system, without requiring an oral presentation competency evaluator or interviewer. The behavioral indicator is automatically recognized by the machine, and the unattended automatic oral ability evaluation scoring system is recorded and stored in the unattended automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system in advance. By comparing and analyzing the response behavior scale markers, the unattended and automatic response behavior scale markers are selected and scored by mechanical unattended, minimizing the scope for the subjective interpretation of the verbal evaluation evaluator or interviewer, making it more objective and efficient The purpose of this is to enable the rapid evaluation of oral presentation competency, thereby selecting talents with the highest competency 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 capability evaluation scoring system is used for oral presentation competency evaluation to improve the objectivity, reliability, and unmanned automatic performance of oral presentation capability evaluation, prior patents No. 101491012, No. 101286944, No. Prior patents such as 101235292, 100440615, 101144998, 100445942, 1020090129671, 1020020084564, 1020030094749, 1020080066913, 102014005442, 1020100089586, 1020110072647, and 1020160082648 One objective production instead of judging existing human subjective value scaling, by introducing pipyeonggaja competency development stage, the question presented is also mechanically mechanically concrete objective behavioral measure pyojibeop to discriminate in the end only once the degree of retention capability of using in This is a computer program recorded on a recording medium for executing a mechanical unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring evaluation method on a computer.

The present inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system provides tasks to the respondents by requesting the respondents' responses to each action presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation for oral presentation competency evaluation. by rating them on reactive response actions pipyeonggaja, as to the question presented may also be distinctive, objective and observable behavioral measures cover in a one-time only competency development stage, degree of retention capability of the evaluation capabilities of pipyeonggaja Tuesday held competency development Unattended automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system is automatically unattended without the need to have an oral presentation competency evaluator or interviewer by assigning a score and storing it in advance in the unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system. Recognizing, the unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system compares and analyzes the respondents' behaviors that have been observed with Cafera, micro, with the response behavior indicators previously recorded and stored in the unattended automatic oral ability evaluation scoring system, By selecting the matching or the most appropriate response behavior indicators and automatically scoring them unattended, only specific scores are assigned to the specific response behaviors of the respondents, and the competency development stage of the evaluator and the degree of competency retention are presented only once. as also to discrimination, mechanical enemies unmanned automatic scoring objective assessment techniques, oral presentation skills assessment assessors or with grading assessment techniques that minimize any room for subjective interpretation of the interviewer, mechanical objective unmanned automatic oral presentation skills assessment grading assessment method Is a computer program recorded on a recording medium for causing the computer to run.

The unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system further developed in the 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 The recording medium to execute the mechanical objective unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring evaluation method on the computer that can distinguish the evaluator's competency development stage and capability retention level, which can be done unattended, with only one question presentation. It is a computer program recorded in.

The inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system is able to discriminate the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level from the existing one's subjective valuation technique based on the subject's subjective valuation technique with only one question presentation. The reliability and accuracy of oral presentation competency evaluation were improved by introducing and developing a scoring evaluation method based on a mechanical and objective objective behavioral evaluation scale.

Oral presentation competency evaluation Responsible behavior that can occur to the respondent regarding the task presentation that requires the respondent's response by means of action presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation to evaluate the capability inherent in the evaluator, that is, the degree of future possibility Listeners are rated as a specific objective behavioral scale that can discriminate the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level with a single objective question presentation. By storing records in the presentation capability evaluation scoring system, it is possible to recognize objectively and automatically by the unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system without the need to have an oral presentation competency evaluator or interviewer. By evaluating, the difference in the scores according to the difference in the value of the evaluator or interviewer, the difference in interpretation, and the situation in the verbal competency evaluation for the same response behavior of the respondent was resolved, so that the same score was always displayed for the same response behavior.

The present inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system uses the oral presentation competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer's physical and cognitive observation judgment interpretation in the scoring evaluation method in oral presentation competency evaluation, and evaluates oral presentation competency evaluation. Objective Unmanned Automated Oral Presentation Competency Evaluation without Interviewer Through electronic scoring system, objective and automatic unmanned automatic response recognition and response behavior of the respondents are automatically recognized, compared and analyzed, and the oral presentation capability evaluation is performed by scoring This is a mechanical objective unmanned automatic that can discriminate the competency development stage and competency level of the evaluator with only one question presentation. It is characterized by the fact that it is a computer program recorded on a recording medium for executing a verbal ability evaluation scoring system on a computer.

The inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system can be evaluated with just one presentation of how much the evaluator has the capability required by the organization, that is, the degree of future possibility . In the same way as the problem presentation, the program to record the task that requires the subject's response behavior is recorded and stored, and the task storage presentation part 110;,

Discrimination of reaction behaviors that appear to the respondents through task presentations that require the respondents' response behaviors in the manner of action presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation, is also distinguished by the one-time question presentation A part 120 that stores reaction behaviors, which can be typed and graded as objective and specific behavioral scale markers, and recorded and stored in an unattended automatic oral ability evaluation scoring system server;

Objective response unattended automatically by the unmanned automatic oral presentation competency scoring system without observation of the oral presentation competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer By comparing and analyzing the respondent's response behaviors and the respondent's respondable response behaviors with the contents of the response behavior scale indicator (120) recorded in advance as an objective and specific behavior scale indicator on the server, the matching or most satisfactory response behavior scale By selecting the cover, objective unattended automatic scoring evaluation and grading with the ability development holding score that can distinguish the evaluator's competency development stage and competency holding degree with only one question presentation is recorded. Stored, unattended mechanical objective scoring unit 130;

Consisting of,

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, the subject's competency development stage and competency retention level can be presented only once . The feature is to provide a computer program recorded on a recording medium for executing a computerized, verbal ability evaluation scoring evaluation method capable of discriminating, mechanical and objective unattended automatic scoring evaluation.

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

The present inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system is a verbal presentation capability evaluation scoring system for recruitment and promotion evaluation of an organization, without verbal competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer, suggesting actions for oral presentation competency evaluation, situation Electronic mechanical objective unattended automatic scoring, which can discriminate the stage of competency development and competency retention in just one question presentation in the presentation, problem presentation, question presentation, and scoring evaluation of the respondent's response behavior . Through the unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system introduced by the evaluation system, it has the effect of objectively, promptly and accurately evaluating the competency of the evaluator automatically and realizing effective and reliable oral presentation competency evaluation.

With the unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system, the present inventors not only secured objectivity, reliability, and fairness for oral presentation competency evaluation, but also secured economic, efficiency, promptness, and unmanned automatic performance of oral presentation competency evaluation.

The unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system of the present inventor responds to the respondent in the oral presentation competency evaluation in the same way as the behavioral presentation, question presentation, problem presentation, and situation presentation to evaluate the competency of the evaluator. To make a presentation requesting this, and to classify the respondent's possible reaction behaviors in advance, to classify the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level into specific objective action scale indicators that can be discriminated even with a single question presentation. Thus, the unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system is recorded and stored in the unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system. During the performance of the oral presentation competency evaluation, the unattended automatic oral presentation competency scoring evaluation system automatically responds to the behaviors of the respondents who have observed the recognition of Cafera and micro, and the response behavior scale recorded in the unattended automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring evaluation system in advance. By comparing and analyzing the contents of the cover, select the response behavior scale indicator that matches or best matches, and configure it to automatically evaluate the scores unattended.

Unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation The mechanical system is capable of discriminating the behaviors of the respondents who have been observed by the unattended automatic cafér and micro-recognition, with the ability to discern the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention with a single question. By providing and providing objective behavioral scale markers, it is possible to quickly and quickly evaluate and evaluate the capacity of the evaluator by mechanical and objective unattended,

Objective, highly reliable, efficient, fast, economical and unattended, to realize the oral presentation competency evaluation that can distinguish the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level with just one question presentation. It has the effect of objectively and fairly evaluating talents with the highest competencies required for recruitment and promotion.

The existing oral presentation competency evaluation was to directly use the physical and cognitive judgment interpretation function of an expert competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer, so it was possible to perform the evaluation only when a competency evaluation expert participated. Competitiveness of verbal presentation competency by enabling electronic and mechanical scoring evaluation by the objective unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system created by the inventor of this application, a competency evaluation expert, without oral or interviewer Not only evaluation experts do it. 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 or 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. Evaluation The evaluation time was shortened, and it was possible to conduct oral presentation competency evaluation economically and quickly at low cost without the need for an evaluator or interviewer.

1 is a mechanical specific objective behavioral scale that can discriminate the subjective value judgment technique of human beings used by the preceding patents, the competency development stage, and the degree of competency of the evaluator used by the present invention with only one question presentation. Comparison of techniques, and comparison of differences between prior patents and the present invention.
2 is a comparison diagram of human subjective value judgment techniques used by prior patents.
3 is a scoring evaluation method for task presentation that requires the respondent's response by methods such as behavior presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation, presented in the oral presentation competency evaluation. you presented a question of only a degree of reserve capacity once can also discriminate, using the mechanical behavior objectively measure specifically covers evaluation scoring, mechanical objective unmanned automatic oral presentation skills assessment diagram showing the characteristics of the assessment scoring system.
4 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. 5 is a block diagram of the server 100 of the unmanned automatic shoe presentation capability evaluation scoring system shown in FIG. 4.
FIG. 6 is a block diagram of the PC terminal 200 of the evaluator of the oral presentation competency shown in FIG. 4.
7 is a configuration diagram of a competency development stage and a capacity retention degree classification system 300 of an 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.

Presenting tasks that require the respondent's response by means of behavior presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation, as suggested in oral presentation competency evaluation, and, accordingly, performing mechanical objective unattended automatic scoring evaluation of the respondent's response behavior, Unmanned automatic shoe presentation capability evaluation scoring system of the present invention, as shown in Figure 5,

Presenting a task that requires the respondent's response behavior through methods of behavior presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation that can be evaluated with only one presentation of how much the evaluator possesses the capability required by the organization, that is, the degree of future possibility . A record-stored, task storage presentation section 110,

It is a mechanical objective and specific behavioral scale indicator that can discriminate the respondent's response behavior according to the behavioral presentation, situational presentation, questioning, and problem presentation with the ability to discriminate the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention with just one question presentation . The graded and assigned competency development scores, which are recorded and stored in advance, the part 120 where the reaction behaviors are stored,

Unattended Automated Oral Presentation Competency Evaluation The scoring behavior evaluation system automatically compares the response behaviors of the respondents who have observed the recognition of cafera and micro, and the response behavior scale indicator of the part 120 in which the response behaviors are stored in advance. By selecting the appropriate response behavior indicators, the objective scoring system, which can discriminate the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention degree with only one question presentation, is automatically unattended to determine the evaluation score for competency development. To do, mechanical objective unmanned automatic scoring part (130)

It consists of.

At this time, 5 to 6 levels of behavioral scale markers were used as the normal scale markers of the part 120 in which the reaction behaviors were recorded and stored, but as shown in FIG. 3, it can be provided in different stages. It belongs to the scope of the present invention.

In addition, the task presentation that requires the respondent's response behavior by methods such as action presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, problem presentation, etc. of the task storage presentation section 110 is divided into several types according to the evaluation target competency to be evaluated by the evaluator. It is composed and presented. Here, it is prepared and stored in various presentation tasks according to the detailed evaluation capability, and then presented differently according to the unattended automatic oral capability evaluation scoring evaluation system or the detailed evaluation capability selected by the evaluator.

The task storage and presentation part 110 is a part for storing task files presented as tasks by methods of behavior presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation, which are presented in various types according to detailed capabilities.

Depending on the competency content type of the task presentation presented in accordance with the detailed evaluation competency, the content of the response behavior scale indicator in the part where the behavior presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, problem presentation, and reaction behavior are stored, and objective scoring evaluation section (130 ) Changes.

The part 120 in which the reaction behaviors are recorded is stored in the reaction behaviors of high-performance competents (5 points) in consideration of differences in the types of changes in human behaviors according to the developmental stages of competency and the level of competency to evaluate through the reaction behaviors of the evaluators. The response behaviors of low-performance competency holders (1 point) are categorized into 5 grades, and the response behavior indicators are recorded for each grade.

The objective objective scoring part 130, which can automatically discriminate the level of competency development and the level of competency retention by the evaluator, is the form of the respondent's response behavior observed by the unattended automatic oral competency evaluation scoring evaluation system with Cafera and micro perception. For example, by comparing and analyzing the response behavior scale markers of the part 120 where the reaction behaviors are stored, select and match or match the response behavior scale markers, and select the grade to which the response behavior scale belongs as the acquired competency rating of the subject Select.

An existing general interview or an existing oral presentation competency evaluation requires an oral presentation competency evaluator or interviewer, but the unmanned automatic oral presentation competency scoring evaluation system of the present invention requires an oral presentation capability evaluator or interviewer The main difference is not.

2. Specific examples

The present invention will be specifically illustrated and described.

The description will be made focusing on the unmanned automatic shoe presentation capability evaluation scoring system shown in FIG. 5.

In the task storage and presentation section 110, competency evaluation tasks are classified and recorded according to the content of the evaluation competency. For example, in the presentation of the competency evaluation task, the competency name to be evaluated, the major classification name is "relational competency", the middle classification name is "pseudocommunication capability", and the minor classification name is "empathy competency". According to competency, competency evaluation tasks are classified and classified.

Therefore, the unattended automatic oral competency evaluation scoring system is conveniently selected from the list of assignments that classify the evaluation tasks into related categories, communication skills in the middle category, and empathy skills in the small category according to the capabilities of the required evaluators required by the organization. You can select and present the task to the evaluator for evaluation.

Oral presentation competency evaluation system, or evaluator, is the competency of the proposed competency, the related competency in the large category, and the communication competency in the middle category, as to what competencies of the respondents required by the organization to evaluate through the oral competency assessment In the case of sub-category, the report indicates that it is a sympathetic competency, and the evaluation task related to this can be known through the capacity classification name.

In addition, in the task storage and presentation section 110, the unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system is the best to distinguish 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. Subjects that require the respondents to respond should be presented in the following ways: behavioral presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation.

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 questions, the unattended automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system is "I am your subordinate, and you are my supervisor. At this point, I am the subordinate or the subordinate is the boss. If you say it together, what do you say?",

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 120 where the response behaviors are recorded, the respondents corresponding to the response behavior indicators for each stage of the behavioral development of the competency development and retention level according to the difference in the change of human behavior according to the development stage of the competency to be evaluated. The capability development retention score is scored by categorizing and rating each respondent's responding behaviors by behavioral scale by a mechanical specific objective behavioral scale method that can distinguish the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level with only one question presentation. Given, it is stored in advance in the mechanical objective unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system.

For example, the example of the respondent's response behavior indicator for the above situation presentation task for the empathy, which is one of the subcommittees of communication competency, for example, one example of the exemplary response behavior indicator for each indicator It looks like this:

-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 stored in advance in the unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system.

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)

And in the unattended automatic mechanical objective scoring section 130, the evaluator's competency development stage and capability retention level can be discriminated by only one question presentation.

The objective behavior of the verbal ability evaluation scoring system is unmanned and monitored automatically and unattended by the machine, without the need for an oral presentation competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer to respond to the task presentation. The verbal competency evaluation scoring system, the specific objective response behavior indicators previously recorded in the part 120 where the reaction behaviors are recorded, and the response behaviors of the respondents who observed the recognition of cafera and micro during oral presentation competency evaluation By comparative analysis, the grade level of the response behavior scale indicator that matches or matches the most appropriately is selected, and mechanically and objectively unattended, and the grade to distinguish the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention degree with only one question presentation do.

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

However, prior patents No. 101491012, No. 101286944, No. 101235292, No. 100440615, No. 101144998, No. 100445942, No. 1020090129671, No. 1020020084564, No. 1020030094749, No. 1020080066913, No. 102014005442, No. 1020100089586 , 1020110072647, 1020160082648, the existing human subjective value judgment method based on scoring method,

In evaluating an existing general interview or oral presentation competency evaluation, the evaluator's response to the proposed task situation, in evaluating how much the empathy competency, one of the subcommittees of communication competency, is,

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

The existing oral presentation competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer has been subjectively evaluating and evaluating the subject's observational behavior.

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

Therefore, in the existing oral presentation competency evaluation, when the respondent's response behavior appeared, the behavioral evidence that there was a certain amount of empathy was revealed (2 points), and another response behavior appeared. There was no specific objective behavioral indicator or criterion to know whether there was a certain level of empathy, and the evidence of behavior was excellent (5 points), and the subjective value judgment of an oral competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer Since it was decided by, there were many differences in the evaluation scores among the evaluator or interviewer, 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 knowledge can evaluate and evaluate how much the testee has the competency to be assessed and how much evidence of the behavior is indicated. It was never easy for the evaluator and the outside public to submit to the evaluation result because the judgment interpretation process was included in the internal thinking judgment process in the head of the verbal evaluation evaluator or interviewer.

Therefore, the present inventor's unattended automatic oral competencies evaluation scoring system evaluates respondents' response behavior according to the task presentation method that requires the respondent's response by methods of action presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation of oral presentation competency evaluation. In terms of ships, through the provision of an unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system that introduces a mechanical specific objective behavioral evaluation method that can discriminate between the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention with only one question presentation Since the automatic grading is performed by mechanical unmanned automatic evaluation, the evaluation of competency held by the evaluator is automatically, objectively, highly reliable, fair, efficient, and economically realized, thereby objectively obtaining the talent with the highest competency required by the organization. It has the effect of evaluating, hiring, and promoting.

Evaluation target
Detailed Capabilities Situation, questioning score Prior patent
(Subjective
Judgment scale) The present invention
(Specific objective action scale indicator)
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.

4. Implementation of the invention

4 is a block diagram of an unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system for implementing a method for scoring an oral presentation capability evaluation according to an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 5 is a block diagram of the server 100 of the unmanned automatic shoe presentation capability evaluation scoring system shown in FIG. 4.

FIG. 6 is a block diagram of the PC or terminal 200 of the evaluator of the oral ability evaluation shown in FIG. 4.

7 is a configuration diagram of a competency development stage and a capability retention degree classification system 300 of an unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring evaluation system.

5 and 6, the method for conducting oral presentation competency evaluation according to an embodiment of the present invention is performed through the PC terminal 200 of the evaluator connected to the server 200 of the unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system. , Oral presentation competency evaluation The evaluator performs verbal presentation competency evaluation in the same environment as the actual face-to-face oral presentation capability assessment using the PC terminal 200 of the evaluator, and evaluates the results of the oral presentation competency evaluation automatically. It can be notified from the server 100 of the scoring evaluation system.

For understanding of the present invention, the server 100 of the unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system will be described first.

Server 100 of the unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system,

A section 110 for storing and presenting files for presenting tasks classified according to the type of evaluation competency,

Oral presentation competency evaluation Responds to respondents' possible response behaviors through a specific objective action scale measure, which can discriminate competency development stages and competency retention levels through only one question presentation. The part 120 in which the reaction actions are recorded and stored, which stores the rating indicators of the reaction actions in which each competency development retention score is assigned according to the action level indicator,

When the PC terminal 200 of the registered oral presentation competency evaluator connects to the server for the evaluation of the oral presentation competency by registering and managing the target person for the oral presentation competency evaluation, the oral presentation capability evaluation task file is sent to the PC terminal 200 of the evaluator. A transmission/reception management section 190 that transmits and receives a file that stores and transmits the recorded behaviors of the respondents generated in the verbal capability evaluation by transmitting the verbal capability evaluation;

The voice and data analysis part 140 for recognizing, analyzing, and extracting voices and written documents appearing in the respondents' response behaviors,

The video behavior analysis part 150 that analyzes and extracts the behavior of the video recording the reaction behaviors of the subject, and

The analysis results of the voice, video, and document of the response behaviors are classified and graded according to a specific objective behavioral scale measure set in advance, and the competency development retention score is assigned and compared and analyzed with the recorded response behavior scale indicator 120. Mechanical objective unmanned automatic scoring evaluation, unmanned automatic mechanical objective scoring evaluation (130)

It is configured to include.

The Oral Presentation Competency Assessment Task File is an action form that best measures the competency to be measured in the Oral Presentation Competency Evaluation. It is a task presentation that requires the respondent's response behavior. As a result, it is composed of video, audio, and data files that contain the content that is presented to the subject.

In the unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system of the present inventor, the competency to be evaluated is classified into accident competency, relational competency, and business competency,

By classifying them back into competency, they are divided into detailed competencies such as strategic thinking capability, non-presenting capability, policy planning capability, problem recognition capability, communication capability, motivation capability, integrated coordination capability, performance management capability, change management capability, and organization management capability. By classification,

The presentation tasks are classified and prepared according to the various types of detailed competency to be evaluated, and the presentation tasks of multiple items selected by competency type are presented.

The presentation tasks thus prepared are stored in the task storage and presentation section 110 and then presented to the verbal evaluator.

Each respondent's possible response behavior for each presentation task is classified and graded according to a mechanical specific objective action scale method that can discriminate the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level with a single question presentation. A rating score of competency development is given to the response behavior scale cover, and the record is stored in the server 120 of the server of the unattended automatic oral presentation competency evaluation scoring system in advance in which the reaction behavior is stored.

An unattended automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring evaluation system that can distinguish the evaluator's possible response behaviors for each presentation task from the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention level with a single question. The response behaviors of the evaluators acquired by recording and recording the recognition of cafera and micros during the oral presentation competency evaluation, recognized by the automatic mechanical objective scoring part 130, and the capability development stage of the evaluator and the degree of capacity retention in advance It is classified and graded according to the mechanical specific objective behavioral scale method, which can be discriminated even by presenting only one question, and compared and analyzed with the recorded and stored response behavior indicators. .

Oral presentation competency evaluation The PC terminal 200 of the evaluator,

Part 250 temporarily storing the program recording the oral presentation competency evaluation method according to an embodiment of the present invention in the recording storage part,

Oral presentation competency evaluation When receiving an execution input by the evaluator, a control unit 240 that reads the execution method program from the recording storage section 250 and controls it to be executed in the program execution section 230

It is configured to include.

As shown in FIG. 6, a program recording a method for executing oral presentation competency evaluation according to an embodiment of the present invention includes a control processor 240, an execution processor 230, a recording storage processor 250, and transmission/reception of an oral presentation capability evaluation execution. And a processor 260.

The execution processor 230 for the execution of the oral presentation competency evaluation receives voice, video, and data for presentation of tasks according to the screen configuration of the monitor 210, the oral presentation competency evaluation system, or the evaluator's operation, and provides it to the evaluator of the oral presentation competency evaluation And, it is a processor for the control of the overall operation such as recording and storing and sending and receiving of verbal ability evaluation and response behavior.

The recording and storage processor 250 records the image of the respondent's response behavior by recording the verbal competency evaluation subject with the camera 270 while performing the verbal competency evaluation, and records and stores the image of the respondent's response behavior at the same time with the microphone 280. Announcement competency evaluation This is a processor that records the voice of the evaluator and recognizes and stores (250) the respondent's responses through input devices such as a mouse and keyboard.

For the execution of oral presentation competency evaluation according to the present invention,

Establish a program for conducting oral presentation competency evaluation and configure the terminal 200 of the oral presentation competency evaluation evaluator with a computer, PC, etc., which is a means for executing the oral presentation competency evaluation, and the execution processor for the oral presentation competency evaluation ( 230), a program including the recording and storage processor 250 is installed in the terminal 200 of the evaluator of oral presentation capability evaluation.

The method for executing the oral presentation competency evaluation according to the present invention is a program produced and recorded so that the presentation tasks can be transmitted and received from the server 100 of the unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system to the PC and terminal.

The program is installed on the PC terminal 200 of the evaluator to enable the execution of the oral presentation competency evaluation, and the video, audio, and data for presentation of the task are received from the server 100 of the oral presentation capability evaluation scoring evaluation system. The method of performing the oral presentation competency evaluation, which is performed by transmitting/receiving to the PC terminal 200 and performing the playback output, will be described with reference to FIG. 6 in the next step.

And the procedure of the method for performing oral presentation competency evaluation according to the embodiment of the present invention proceeding from FIG. 5 will be first described.

Referring to FIG. 5, the method for performing oral presentation competency evaluation includes: the verbal competency evaluation evaluator accesses the server of the unattended automatic oral competency evaluation scoring evaluation system, confirms the member registration, the oral presentation capability evaluation process, and the evaluation competency type. The connection, transmission/reception management step (190) for selecting, etc., transmits the voice, video, and data files for project presentation from the server 100 of the unattended automatic oral ability evaluation scoring system to the PC terminal 200 of the evaluator to be evaluated It includes a task presentation step (110) for presenting a task to a person, a recording step (160) for recording a response behavior, and an objective scoring step (130).

In the step 110 of transmitting an audio, video, and data file for presenting an assignment from an unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system to a PC terminal of the evaluator, presenting the task to the evaluator (110), the oral presentation capability evaluation system or the evaluator executes the program. After proceeding, it is made by selecting (190) the evaluation competency type and requesting to conduct oral presentation competency evaluation. Voice, video, and a number of tasks that are assigned to the evaluation competency type of oral presentation competency evaluation are presented. The file of the data is requested and transmitted to the server 100 for the unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring system.

Since the response action time is set for each of the files of the audio, video, and data for presenting the task, the information on the reaction action time is also transmitted for each of the audio, video, and data for the task presentation.

In the selection step of the oral presentation competency evaluation progress method performed in the connection/transmission management section 190, the evaluation of the oral presentation competency evaluation evaluator as one person or the performance of the oral presentation competency evaluation evaluator in multiple groups Allows the evaluator to choose whether or not to perform an oral presentation competency scoring system.

On the other hand, audio, video, and data for project presentation are produced by dividing into the oral presentation competency evaluation for one person and the oral presentation competency evaluation for the group. It is executed before step 110 of sending a file and presenting the task to the evaluator.

The task presentation step 110 outputs a voice presenting a task or plays a video, and presents data.

In the recording step 160 of the response action recording, the files of the audio, video, and data for the task presentation are sequentially reproduced and output in sequence, but each time the completion of the output of the audio, video, and data for the task presentation is completed. Gives, and allows the respondents to evaluate the oral presentation competency, record and store it, and transmit it to the server 100 of the unmanned automatic oral presentation competency scoring evaluation system.

Reaction behavior recording and storage step 160 continues during and after outputting the video for project presentation by the project presentation step 110, and is a step that continues for a given reaction action time for each project, and verbally announced the project presentation Competitiveness Evaluation The video and audio of the behaviors of the respondents are recorded with video and audio to obtain the video and voice of the reaction behaviors, and the response data data input by the evaluator according to the task presentation is automatically unattended. Server 100. The reaction action time may be different for each task presentation.

Oral Presentation Competency Evaluation The evaluator needs to know if he or she is shooting properly, but it can locate the best location, so the screen displayed on the monitor will display the oral presentation competency evaluator or interviewer's video for the assignment, response action time, It is presented by dividing it into the part that outputs the image captured by the camera. Here, in order to enable the evaluator of oral presentation competency evaluation to know the reaction action time, the response action time allocated to the task performance is displayed on the monitor when the task presentation audio/video is output.

In order to output the video for project presentation similar to the actual face-to-face verbal assessment, the project presentation video of multiple evaluators or interviewers is randomly selected and reproduced each time the audio and video for each project presentation is output. . Accordingly, the evaluator of oral presentation competency makes it feel as if viewing the images of different oral presentation competency evaluators or interviewers when listening to each presentation video/voice.

On the other hand, the video recording of the reaction behavior of the evaluator of oral presentation competency is not limited to the recording of the reaction behavior time, and the reaction behavior is recorded and stored even when the project presentation image and voice are output, and this is unmanned automatic mechanical objective scoring evaluation step (130) ), the video and audio recorded during the reaction action time are transmitted to the server 100 of the unmanned automatic oral ability evaluation scoring system.

The unmanned automatic mechanical objective scoring evaluation step 130 records the video, voice, and data files of the reaction behavior obtained by recording in the response behavior recording and storage step 160 to the server 100 of the unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring evaluation system. Transmitted, typed and graded according to the mechanical specific objective behavioral scale method in advance, and the competency development retention score is given and compared and analyzed with the response behavior scale indicator stored in the part 120 where the response behavior is stored, and is matched or best matched This is an unattended automatic mechanical objective scoring evaluation step 130, in which a mechanical objective objective unattended scoring is performed by selecting a response behavior scale indicator.

On the other hand, the audio and video files of the task presentation transmitted from the unmanned automatic oral presentation capability evaluation scoring evaluation system server 100 are output for oral presentation capability evaluation, and then the response behavior is recorded in the storage step 160 of the terminal 200 in the recording step 160. It is automatically deleted from the recording storage section 250, so that the presentation of the assignment does not take up unnecessary memory space.

In the above, to illustrate and describe the technical spirit of the present invention as a specific embodiment, the present invention is not limited to the same configuration and operation as the specific embodiment as described above, and various modifications are included in the scope of the present invention. Accordingly, such modifications are considered to be within the scope of the present invention.

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. Since the capability evaluation scoring evaluation system with the capability automatic discrimination function has not been established, the capacity evaluation is still being carried out by using the large- scale budget, a large number of people, and a lot of time, using the direct face-to-face method of the competency evaluator and test taker.

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.

The present inventor's unmanned automatic oral presentation competency evaluation point evaluation system enables the oral presentation competency evaluation to be carried out automatically and unattended in large quantities at a low cost and can be carried out at all times in industry, employment evaluation and promotion evaluation. , Oral presentation competency evaluation The interviewer or interviewer's physical and cognitive observation judgment can be carried out electronically and unattended automatically without intervention, and can be immediately employed. Oral presentation competency evaluation It is now possible to take the test from the subject's home without going to the location of the enforcement agency.

100: server of unmanned automatic shoe presentation capability evaluation scoring system
110: assignment storage
120: part where reaction actions are stored
130: Unmanned automatic mechanical objective scoring evaluation
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 system that does not require an evaluator,
As a method of action presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation , which can discriminate the stage of competency development of the evaluator and discriminate how much the evaluator has the competency to evaluate with a single presentation. The task storage presentation section (110), which presents tasks that require the respondent's response behavior,
Responsive behaviors that can appear to the evaluator through task presentation in the manner of behavior presentation, situation presentation, question presentation, and problem presentation, not just a number or a subjective abstract judgment measure, but only the evaluator's competency development stage and competency retention only once The part 120 storing objective specific response behavior scales, which are recorded and stored by classifying them into mechanical specific objective behavioral scale indicators that can be discriminated even by question presentation ,
Verbal presentation competency evaluation The objective specific response recorded and stored in the verbal competency evaluation scoring system by observing the response behavior of the respondents according to the presentation of the response requirements of the scoring system is unattended and automatically recognized by the cafera and micro By comparing and analyzing the behavioral indicators, select the objective specific response behavior indicators that match or best match , and do not need to have a verbal competency evaluator or interviewer, subjectively to the verbal competency evaluator or interviewer The mechanical automatic objective scoring section that enables the mechanical objective unattended automatic scoring evaluation to discriminate the evaluator 's competency development stage and competency retention level with only one question presentation without intervention of judgment .
It consists of,
Oral presentation competency evaluation Score evaluation system, which is described as a mechanical objective specific behavioral evaluation scale indicator so that the competency evaluation scoring system can recognize the contents of the assessment evaluation sheet, recognizes the oral assessment capability evaluation scoring system, cafera, micro Characterized in that it does not require an oral presentation competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer, so that it can be evaluated by comparing it with observed behaviors of the respondents.
In the verbal competency evaluation, the level of competency development and competency level of the respondent can be automatically and unattendedly presented only once, without an oral competency evaluation evaluator or interviewer A computer program recorded on a recording medium to execute a mechanical objective, unattended, automatic, and verbal ability assessment scoring system that can discriminate .

Images