Testing for Competence Rather Than for Intelligence(word版)

Management经管空间1022012年10月 基于胜任力视角的职业经理人的素质评价解析首都经济贸易大学 刘芳摘 要：员工胜任力特征能够决定企业的绩效。

本文在介绍国内外管理者的胜任力现状基础上，总结了胜任力模型，并提出了胜任力投入产出模型。

对职业经理人的胜任力素质做出解析，基于此模型，运用AHP方法，把已经建立好的职业经理人的胜任力素质模型应用到现实中，为招聘甄选和评价提供理论依据。

关键词：胜任力 素质 职业经理人 中图分类号：F272 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1005-5800(2012)10(b)-102-031 问题的提出国美的黄光裕与陈晓之争，让我们对职业经理人的角色重视起来，到底什么素质的人才能够胜任职业经理人，会给企业带来理想的业绩。

在知识经济时代，随着企业环境的变化、组织结构的变革，和职业经理人的迅速发展，企业越来越关心其管理者是否具备胜任工作的能力，并能够最大极限地激发、挖掘员工的潜在素质，获得满意的绩效和竞争优势，因此，许多企业已经开始使用胜任力模型来帮助他们识别，要在一个职位上实现良好的业绩必须具备哪些技巧、知识以及个性，并且使用胜任力模型来保证人力资源体系能够把精力集中在这些技巧、知识以及个性的开发上。

正确运用胜任力理论能够将员工的命运同企业的发展结合统一，形成竞争对手难以仿效的核心竞争力。

胜任力模型已是十分重要的工作发展体系，会迅速成为业绩管理标准和工作发展标准。

2 胜任力相关理论2.1 胜任力理论的溯源1911年，Taylor 进行了被称为“管理胜任运动”的“时间—动作研究”，此研究被普遍认为是胜任力研究的开端。

他将复杂的工作分解成一系列简单的步骤，进而来确定不同工作内容对员工胜任力的要求，并建立规范化的操作方法，又采用系统的培训和发展活动去提高员工的胜任力，来提高员工的绩效。

但是，真正被认定为胜任力模型构建方法创始人的是心理学家McClelland 。

在1973年，他在《美国心理学家》杂志刊发了题为“Testing for Competence Rather Than for ‘Intelligence ’”(测量胜任力而非智力)的文章，提出用胜任力(Competency)指标来克服传统的人才测评与甄选机制存在的缺陷，预测工作绩效。

构建以岗位胜任力为导向的老年医学临床实践教学模式作者：王小燕袁野来源：《中国教育技术装备》2024年第12期摘要随着老龄化社会的到来，理解和掌握老年医学基础知识及基本技能，拥有老年医学相关岗位胜任力，已逐步成为医学生适应未来临床医学及社会发展的基本要求。

成都中医药大学附属医院老年病科发挥自身教学优势，以岗位胜任力为导向，深入挖掘临床教学资源，规范临床教学行为，构建模块化的老年医学临床教学平台，为努力促进老年医学临床教学的条理化、规范化，维持稳定高效的临床教学质量，构建契合临床的老年医学实践教学模式进行积极探索。

关键词岗位胜任力；临床教学；老年医学；实践教学；实习生中图分类号：G642.44 文献标识码：B文章编号：1671-489X（2024）12-0114-040 引言人口老龄化是21世纪人类社会面临的重大课题。

国务院第七次人口普查数据显示：截至2020年底，我国老龄人口已达2.6亿人，65岁及以上人口占比13.5%，预计到2040年，65岁及以上老年人口占比将超过20%，人口结构趋向于“倒金字塔”形，老龄化社会不可逆转[1]。

目前，我国人口老龄化正在加速，老年人群的医疗保健需求快速增长。

老年医学作为门一针对老年人特有的生理和心理特点，专门为老年人提供医疗保健服务的学科，已成为现代医学中必不可少的前沿学科。

我国老年医学教育起步较晚，如何提高老年医学临床教学质量，培养具备老年医学相关素养的临床医学人才，是医学教育亟待解决的问题之一。

老年医学教学有其特殊性和自身规律，老年人所患疾病复杂、多样，多合并两种或两种以上疾病，常涉及多个器官和系统。

老年医学临床教学内容涉及预防、医疗、康复的全程，教学广度涉及生物、社会和心理各个方面，在临床诊疗思维上由“一元论”转向“多元论”。

在多种医疗问题重叠、相互影响的复杂局势下，要善于从中找出最主要的问题，打断恶性循环，通过多学科整合团队工作模式，全方位干预，改善患者的功能状态。

胜任特征模型研究综述（2）作者：周新霞来源：《人力资源管理》2013年第02期摘要：胜任力是指与工作情境有关的个人的价值观、动机、个性或态度、技能、能力和知识等个人特征，能够区分工作优秀者和一般者，可以预测个人未来的工作绩效。

关键词：胜任力胜任特征模型一、胜任力的概念胜任力模型是指担任某一特定的任务角色需要准备的胜任特征的总和，它是针对特定职位表现要求组合起来的一组胜任特征。

胜任力模型为某一特定组织、水平、工作或角色提供了一个成功模型，反映了某一既定工作岗位中影响个体成功的所有主要的行为、技能和知识，因而经常被当作工作场所使用的工具。

国外对胜任力的正式研究起源于1973年，麦克丽兰发表了题为“测量胜任特征而非智力”（Testing for Competence rather than for Intelligence）的文章，对以往的智力和能力倾向测验进行了批评。

他指出“学校成绩不能预测职业成功，智力和能力倾向测验不能预测工作绩效或生活中的其它重要成就，这些测验对少数民族不公平，应该用胜任特征测试代替智力和能力倾向测试”。

1982年McClelland与Boyatizis出版了《胜任的经理：一个高效的绩效模型》一书，胜任力模型开始在英美、加拿大、日本等发达国家的企业人力资源管理中广泛应用。

二、胜任力的结构胜任力模型是指担任某一特定的任务角色需要具备的胜任特征总和。

Spencer根据弗洛伊德的人格理论的“冰山原理”提出了胜任力的冰山模型，各种胜任特征可以被描述为在水中漂浮的一座冰山，共有五种类型的胜任力，动机、特质、自我概念特征、知识和技能。

按照这个模型，“知识和技能”是处于水面以上看得见的冰山，最容易改变的浅层次特征，“动机和特质”是潜藏于水面以下，不易触及到难以改进或有所发展的深层次特征，“自我概念特征”介于两者之间。

有关KSAO维度多元性研究为冰山模型提供了依据，进一步支持这个模型。

三、胜任特征建模的方法建立胜任特征模型有很多方法，包括专家小组、问卷调查、观察法等，目前公认最有效的方法是行为事件访谈法。

A Reconsideration of Testing for CompetenceRather Than for IntelligenceGerald V. Barrett and Robert L. DepinetThe University of AkronCorrespondence concerning this article should be addressed to GeraldV. Barrett, Department of Psychology, The University of Akron, BuchtelCollege of Arts and Sciences, Akron, OH 44325-4301.October 1991 ° American PsychologistDavid C. McClelland's 1973 article has deeply influenced both professional and public opinion. In it, he presented five major themes: (a) Grades in school did not predict occupational success, (b) intelligence tests and aptitude tests did not predict occupational success or other important life outcomes, (c) tests and academic performance only predicted job performance because of an underlying relationship with social status, (d) such tests were unfair to minorities, and (e) "competencies" would be better able to predict important behaviors than would more traditional tests. Despite the pervasive influence of these assertions, this review of the literature showed only limited support for these claims.In 1973, David C. McClelland's lead article in the American Psychologist profoundly affected both the field of psychology and popular opinion. This article was designed to "review skeptically the main lines of evidence for the validity of intelligence and aptitude tests and to draw some inferences from this review as to new lines that testing might take in the future" (p. 1). The main themes he endorsed and continues to promote (e.g., Klemp & McClelland, 1986) have been published widely in newspapers, magazines, and popular books as well as psychology textbooks. Belief in these views, however, has become so widespread that often they are presented as com- mon knowledge (e.g., Feldman, 1990).Table 1 reviews a number of works that cited McClelland (1973) and shows that the impact of McClelland's article has increased over time. Soon after the article was published, McClelland's views were integrated into introductory psychology textbooks. By the late 1980s, these themes had become part of generally accepted public opinion, with newspaper and magazine writers commonly citing McClelland as an authority on intelligence testing.It was McClelland's (1973) belief that intelligence testing should be replaced by competency-based testing. His argument against intelligence testing rested on the assertion that intelligence tests and aptitude tests have not been shown to be related to important life outcomes because psychologists were unable and unwilling to test this relationship. McClelland argued that intelligence tests have been correlated with each other and with grades in school but not with other life outcomes.McClelland (1973) stated that intellectual ability scores and academic performance were theresult of social status, and he labeled them a sort of game. He asserted that a test must resemble job performance or other criteria to be related to the performance on the criteria. He also claimed that intelligence and aptitude testing were unfair to minorities. He advocated that the profession should focus on what he termed competency testing and criterion sampling, maintaining that intelligence testing and aptitude testing should be discarded.The main points of McClelland's (1973) article can be summarized in the following five themes: (a) Grades in school did not predict occupational success, (b) intelligence tests and aptitude tests did not predict occupational success or other important life outcomes, (c) tests and academic performance only predicted job performance as a result of an underlying relationship to social status, (d) traditional tests were unfair to minorities, and (e) "competencies" would more successfully predict important behaviors than would more traditional tests.In the present article, these themes are examined through a comprehensive review of relevant literature. Although McClelland's (1973) article contained many subthemes, only those themes we believe to be the main issues are addressed here. This does not imply, however, that we agree with any aspects of McClelland's article that are not addressed here.Do Grades Predict Occupational Success?McClelland (1973) claimed that "the games people are required to play on aptitude tests are similar to the games teachers require in the classroom" (p. 1). As evidence, McClelland presented four citations that he interpreted as support for his position, while ignoring disconfirming evidence. He also included his personal experiences at Wesleyan University as evidence, maintaining that "A" students could not be distinguished from barely passing students in later occupational success. This finding differs greatly from that found in a similar, more scientific comparison done by Nicholson (1915) at the same school. Nicholson found that academically exceptional students were much more likely to achieve distinction in later life. The results of Nicholson's study are summarized in Table 2.Table 1 Support for McClelland's (1973) Concepts in Newspapers, Magazines, Popular Books, and TextbooksPublication Author(s) Statement NewspapersNew York Times Goleman (1988) IQ tests severely limited as predictors of job successNew York Times Goleman (1984) Intelligence unrelated to career successPlain Dealer Drexler (1981) Tests unrelated to accomplishments in leadership, arts, science, music, writing, speech, and drama; tests discriminate by culture MagazinesAtlantic MonthlyPsychology TodayPsychology TodayPopular booksMore Like UsWhiz KidsPsychology textsPsychology: An IntroductionIntroduction to PsychologyPsychology: Being HumanPsychologyUnderstanding Human BehaviorElements of PsychologyEssentials of PsychologyPsychology: An IntroductionIntroductory PsychologyFallows (1985)Goleman (1981)Koenig (1974)Fallows (1989)Machlowitz (1985)Morris (1990)Coon (1986)Rubin & McNeil (1985)Crider, Goethals,Kavanaugh, &Solomon (1983)McConnell (1983)Krech & Crutchfield(1982)Silverman (1979)Mussen &Rosenzweig (1977)Davids & Engen(1975)Promote replacing aptitude tests with competence testsTests and grades are unrelated to career successTests and grades have less value than competence testsTests and grades are useless as predictors of occupational success Bright people do not do better in lifeIQ and grades are unrelated to occupational successIQ does not predict important behaviors or successSuggests replacing IQ tests with competence testsTests are unfair by race and socioeconomic statusAbility is unrelated to career successTests and grades are unrelated to life outcomesTesting results in categorical labelsTest scores are unrelated to job successSuggests replacing IQ tests with competence testsSome limitations do exist when grades are used as predictors. Grades vary greatly among disciplines (Barrett & Alexander, 1989; EUiott & Strenta, 1988; Schoenfeldt & Brush, 1975) as well as among colleges (Barrett & Alexander, 1989; Humphreys, 1988; Nelson, 1975). Because different students usually take different courses, the reliability of grades is relatively low unless a common set of courses is taken (Butler & McCauley, 1987). Despite these shortcomings, a number of meta-analyses have shown that grades do have a small-to-moderate correlation with occupational success (Cohen, 1984; Dye & Reek, 1988, 1989; O'Leary, 1980; Samson, Graue, Weinstein, & Walberg, 1984). Despite an overlap among the data used by these studies and variability among results (r =. 15 to .29), they all reached similar conclusions. A wide variety of measures of occupational success such as salary, promotion rate, and supervisory ratings have been positively related to grade point average.Table 2 Success of Wesleyan GraduatesClasses/academic standing Percentage who achieved distinction in later life1831-1959Valedictorians and salutatorians 49Phi Beta Kappa 31No scholarly distinction 61860-1889Highest honors 47Phi Beta Kappa 31No scholarly distinction 101890-1899Highest honors 60Phi Beta Kappa 30No scholarly distinction 11Note. Adapted from "Success in college and in later life" by F. W. Nicholson,1915, School and Society, 12, p. 229-232. In the public domain.The results of these recta-analyses reflect the diverse individual studies that showed a relationship between academic performance and occupational success. This relationship may have stemmed from underlying associations between academic performance and intellectual ability, motivation (Howard, 1986), and attitudes toward work (Palmer, 1964). Hunter (1983, 1986) supported this possibility by demonstrating through path analysis that higher ability led to increased job knowledge, which in turn led to better job performance. This relationship was true at all educational levels, including medical school graduates, graduate-level MBAs, college graduates in both engineering and liberal arts, technical school graduates, and high school graduates in the United States and in other countries, such as Sweden (Husen, 1969). The correlations between grades and occupational success have ranged from .14 to .59. However, some research has indicated that these relationships were underestimated because the range onthe predictor grades was restricted (Dye & Reck, 1989; Elliott & Strenta, 1988). Even when limitations are considered, both meta-analyses and diverse individual studies showed grades as predictors of occupational success.Do Intelligence Tests and Aptitude Tests Relate to Job Success or Other Life Outcomes?Thorndike and Hagen's (1959) study was McClelland's (1973) central evidence that aptitude tests did not predict occupational success. The Thorndike and Hagen study involved more than 12,000 correlations between aptitude tests and various measures of occupational success for more than 10,000 individuals. They concluded that the number of significant correlations did not exceed the number that would be expected by chance. From these results, MeClelland concluded that "in other words, the tests were invalid" (p. 3).This characterization of the research by Thorndike and Hagen (1959) has often been quoted as proof that aptitude tests cannot predict job success (Haney, 1982; Nairn, 1980). However, McClelland (1973) did not address some extremely important points.Perhaps the most basic point overlooked was that aptitude tests did, in fact, predict success for those professionals for whom they were designed, namely, pilots and navigators. The test battery consisted of dial and table reading, speed of identification, two-hand coordination, complex coordination, rotary pursuit, finger dexterity, aiming stress, discrimination in reaction time, reading comprehension, mathematics, numerical operations, and mechanical principles (Dubois, 1947). All of these tests were specifically designed to predict success in avionics, and the content of these tests was directly related to that field. The mechanical principles test, for example, asked the direction of the wind as shown by a wind sock.The validity of the test battery was demonstrated during World War II (Dubois, 1947) when an unscreened group was used as part of the validation process. Of those who failed the test battery, only 8.6% subsequently graduated from training (45 of 520), and no one in the lowest stanine (150 subjects) graduated. Conversely, 85% of those in the upper stanines graduated (Dubois, 1947).M eClelland (1973)was concerned that cultural bias was present in aptitude tests. The avionics battery studied by Thorndike and Hagen (1959) was used to predict the success of pilots during World War II (Dubois, 1947) and included West Point cadets, Chinese people, women, and Blacks as subjects. The battery was found valid for all of these groups. This agrees with later findings that, in general, aptitude tests are valid for all groups (Boehm, 1972; Hunter, Sehmidt, & Hunter, 1979; Hunter, Schmidt, & Rauschenberger, 1984).Thorndike and Hagen (1959) surveyed a sample of individuals who had taken the pilot and navigators test battery in 1943. The respondents, who ranged in age from 18 to 26 years at the time of testing, were asked to supply self-report data in seven areas, including monthly income in1955. Validity coefficients were then computed between results on the avionics test battery and self-reported income.This validation procedure contained obvious flaws. The eight-year age range among subjects influenced the job experience of the respondents. Some respondents were well established in their careers. Others were only beginning. Differences in job experience would translate into wide salary differences, even within the same occupation, contaminating the criterion measure.The respondents were in diverse occupations and were dispersed geographically throughout the United States. Even if the avionics test had been appropriate for predicting the success of both an English academic and a physician and even if they were the same ages at the time the salary data were collected, the differences in mean occupational salary would obscure any potential relationship.While McClelland (1973) was claiming that the avionics battery was invalid for predicting occupational success, other researchers using the same data set as Thorndike and Hagen (1959) refined the procedure and obtained additional criterion data in 1969 (Beaton, 1975; Hause, 1972, 1975; Tanbman & Wales, 1973, 1974). These researchers determined that the numerical aptitude factor, derived by factor analysis, was positively related to later income. These studies also showed that this relationship increased over time as the former aviators and navigators matured in their respective occupation. When the data were broken down by occupation, those respondents scoring in the top one tenth in numerical ability earned 30% more than those scoring in the bottom four tenths. When ability was held constant, education was not a significant factor in relation to earnings (Taubman & Wales, 1974).Taubman and Wales (1974) found that those with scores in the top ability level within each educational category (from high school through professional education) had considerably higher salaries than those at the lowest ability level. For individuals with master's degrees, those scoring in the bottom one fifth averaged an annual salary of $14,000, whereas those in the top one fifth averaged $22,200.Comparable results were obtained in a longitudinal study in Sweden over a 26-year period (Husen, 1969). Men included in the group with the highest intellectual ability, when tested at age 10, earned twice the income of those in the lowest category, a practical and significant difference in income. The evidence presented here leads to the inevitable conclusion that intelligence tests and aptitude tests are positively related to job success.Recent EvidenceMany researchers have tested the relationship between cognitive ability and job performance using meta-analytic techniques. Data from approximately 750 studies on the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) showed that the test validly predicted job performance for many different occupations (Hartigan & Wigdor, 1989). Hunter and Hunter's ( 1984 ) recta-analysis demonstrated that in entrylevel positions, cognitive ability predicted job performance with an average validityof .53. This study also showed an average correlation of.45 between intellectual ability and job proficiency. Other studies using a number of different measures of job proficiency have found similar relationships to cognitive ability (Distefano & Pryer, 1985; Hunter, 1983, 1986; Pearlman, Schmidt, & Hunter, 1980; Schmidt, Hunter, & Caplan, 1981).McClelland (1973) implied that supervisors' ratings were biased. However, research has shown that the sex and race of either the rater or ratee do not exert important influence on ratings (Pulakos, White, Oppler, & Borman, 1989). More objective criterion measures produced even higher validity coefficients with aptitude test scores. In Nathan and Alexander's (1988) meta-analysis, the criteria of ratings, rankings, work samples, and production quantities all resulted in high test validities. Production quantity and work sample criteria resulted in substantial validity coefficients, negating McClelland's claim that validity coefficients were obtained only by using biased supervisory ratings. In fact, Smither and Reilly (1987) found that the intelligence of the rater was related to the accuracy of job performance ratings.In a study using path analysis, Schmidt, Hunter, and Outerbridge (1986) found that cognitive ability correlated with job knowledge (.46), work samples (.38), and supervisory ratings (. 16). They concluded that cognitive ability led to an increase in job knowledge, a position also supported by Gottfredson (1986).Practical TasksTo support his assertion that intelligence was not appli- cable to employment situations, McClelland (1973) stated that intelligence as measured in aptitude and intelligence testing was not useful in practical, everyday situations. Schaie (1978) explored this theory, describing the issues that must be addressed to attain external validity. He suggested that criteria should include actual real-world tasks. Willis and Schaie (1986) tested this proposition on older adults. Both the individuals tested and the criterion tasks used in the study, such as ability to comprehend the label on a medicine bottle or to understand the yellow pages of the telephone directory, differed substantially from typical academic tasks. According to McClelland's view, a relationship should not exist between mental abilities, such as fluid and crystallized intelligence, and performance on the eight categories of real-life tasks used by Willis and Schaie.This idea was not supported by the study results. An extremely high relationship existed between intelligence and performance on real-life tasks. Intellectual ability accounted for 80% of the variance in task performance (Willis & Schaie, 1986). In a second study, they again found intellectual ability to be related to both selfperceived performance and the ratings assigned by judges for performing a number of practical tasks. These results were replicated on several samples of older adults (Schaie, 1987).Correlations between performance and scores on intelligence and aptitude tests are supported in other, more unstructured and ambiguous situations including business management (Bray & Grant, 1966; Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick, 1970; Siegel & Ghiselli, 1971), performance in groups (Mann, 1959), and success in science (Price, 1963). Michell and Lambourne (1979) studied16-year-old students and found that those with higher cognitive ability were better able to answer openended questions. Students with higher cognitive ability were also able to sustain discussion longer, ask more interpretive questions, and achieve a more complex understanding of issues. In addition, intelligence has been shown to be related to musical ability (Lynn & Gault, 1986) and creativity (Cropley & Maslany, 1969; Drevdahl & Cattell, 1958; Hocevar, 1980; MacKinnon, 1962; McDermid, 1965; Richards, Kinney, Benet, & Merzel, 1988). From examining these studies, we find cognitive ability to be positively related to a variety of real-world behaviors.SummaryA review of the relevant literature shows that intelligence tests are valid predictors of job success and other important life outcomes. Cognitive ability is the best predictor of performance in most employment situations (Arvey, 1986; Hunter, 1986), and this relationship remains stable over extended periods of time (Austin & Hanisch, 1990). Using samples of the size usually found in personnel work, Thorndike (1986) concluded that cognitive "g" is the best predictor of job success. Ironically, this was the same author whose earlier study was presented in McClelland's (1973) article as evidence that aptitude tests cannot be used to predict job performance.The evidence from these varied scientific studies leads again and again to the same conclusion: Intelligence and aptitude tests are positively related to job performance.Is There an Artifactual Relationship Between Intellectual Ability and Job Success Based on Social Status?A major part of McClelland's (1973) argument against the use of intelligence or aptitude tests was his claim that "the tests are clearly discriminatory against those who have not been exposed to the culture, entrance to which is guarded by the tests" (13. 7). Available scientific evidence has refuted this contention; IQ is related to occupational success. However, McClelland maintained that "'the correlation between intelligence test scores and job success often may be an artifact, the product of their joint association with class status" (p. 3).Despite the numerous ways of defining socioeconomic status (SES), we will show that occupational success is primarily a result of individual cognitive ability and education, both factors that are relatively independent of social origin. We will also show that the strength of the relationship between IQ and job success is not strongly related to the social prestige of particular careers, regardless of variations between occupations. We agree with Gottfredson (1986) that it is more useful to focus on areas such as individual ability rather than irrelevant SES factors, such as family income, over which individuals have no control.Definition of Socioeconomic StatusMcClelland's (1973) definition of SES differs considerably from those used by other researchers. To McClelland, socioeconomic status belongs to the power elite--those who have credentials, power, pull, opportunities, values, aspirations, money, and material advantages. Some of these factors (e.g., values and aspirations) have been shown to be related to later success (Sewell & Hauser, 1976). They have not been described as socioeconomic status by other researchers, however, because these factors do not belong exclusively to the wealthy (Greenberg & Davidson, 1972).McClelland (1973) also described SES in terms of income. Other researchers in the area (e.g., Scarr & Weinberg, 1978; Sewell & Hauser, 1976) have found in- come to have weak connections with later success, with correlations of only. 17 between the adult's income and the income of his or her parents (Sewell & Hauser, 1976). These findings are consistent with Alwin and Thornton (1984) and Williams (1976), who found correlations between. 12 and .25 between family income and the intelligence of the children. Although variation exists in the correlations found, none of the results supported McClelland's view of strong financial effects.Some variables that have been examined as operational measures of SES include family structure, dwelling conditions, and school attendance record (Greenberg & Davidson, 1972); number of siblings in the family, region of residence, and size of community (Peterson & Karplus, 1981); number of people per room in the home (Greenberg & Davidson, 1972; Herzog, Newcomb, & Cisin, 1972); mother's educational level (Herzog et al., 1972; Peterson & Karplus, 1981; Sewell & Hauser, 1976; Willerman, 1979); father's educational level (Duncan, Featherman, & Duncan, 1972; Peterson & Karplus, 1981; Sewell & Hauser, 1976; Willerman 1979); father's occupation (Duncan et al., 1972; Greenberg & Davidson, 1972; Peterson & Karplus, 1981; Sewell & Hauser, 1976; Willerman, 1979); family income (Peterson & Karplus, 1981; Sewell & Hauser, 1976); and median neighborhood income and educational level (Scarr, 1981). Socioeconomic status has often been operationally defined as a combination of these factors. Because SES has been defined in so many ways, the specific variables explored were theoretically more important and practical than the general term socioeconomic status.Effects of Socioeconomic Status VariablesMeasures described as SES, such as parental education, have been related to children's success (Duncan et al., 1972; Scarr & Weinberg, 1978; Sewell & Hauser, 1976). These factors were most likely proxies for explanatory factors such as orderliness in the home and value placed on education. Studies show that parental background variables make little contribution to the distribution of individuals to occupations, whereas years of education and cognitive ability make a large contribution (Duncan et al., 1972; Gottfredson & Brown, 1981). A well-known longitudinal study (Vaillant, 1977) found that broad measures of SES before an individual's enrollment in college had no relation to outcome variables 30 years later. However, among people of equal ability, the most significant predictor of adult occupational achievement was the parents' attitudetoward school and education (Kraus, 1984).The operational measures of SES that have been found to be important determinants of later outcomes (e.g., values and attitudes) were factors that could be influenced. Even the poorest of families could develop and use these factors to benefit their children (Greenberg & Davidson, 1972). Unfortunately, some families are so destitute that their environment would not even be considered as humane, and this deprivation would have detrimental effects on later accomplishments. For the vast majority of people in all socioeconomic and racial subgroups, however, this is not the case (Scarf, 1981).Education and measured cognitive ability were shown to be more important to later outcomes than were such factors as income. However, the effect of SES on these variables must be examined further.Test performance. Oakland (1983) found that the relationship between IQ scores andachievement test performance was the same across SES levels. A factor analysis of ability measures in different SES groups showed that factor structure was not contingent on SES (Humphreys & Taber, 1973). Spaeth (1976) and Valencia, Henderson, and Rankin (1985) found that the effects of parental SES on a child's IQ score were mediated by family interaction and exposure to stimuli provided by parents. In addition, Spaeth concluded that parental influence was a great deal more important than that of teachers and schools. The effects of the latter were much less personal and direct. He concluded that the direct effect of parental SES on child's IQ was -.03. In related research, SES has not been found to have a significant effect on the IQ scores of adult, adopted twins reared apart (Bouchard, Lykken, McGue, Segal, & Tellegen, 1990).Simple measures of SES did not adequately capture the parts of the environment that produced individual differences, even within families (Mercy & Steelman, 1982; Rowe & Plomin, 1981). Even such simple, specific variables as amount of time spent on homework and amount of time spent watching TV on weekdays were related in the expected direction to performance on academic achievement tests (Keith, Reimers, Fehrmann, Pottehaum, & Aubey, 1986). Ultimately, parents could help children learn to cope with cognitive complexity, an effect independent of SES (Spaeth, 1976).College attendance. Contrary to McClelland's (1973, p. 3) assertion that entrance intoprestigious jobs was based on social background, entrance into higher status jobs has instead been shown to be primarily determined by educational attainment (Alexander & Eckland, 1975; Bajema, 1968; Gottfredson & Brown, 1981; Schiefelbein & Farrell, 1984; Sewell & Hauser, 1976). Therefore, what determines attendance at college is very important.McClelland ( 1973) stated that an individual's socioeconomic class was the primary factor in determining his or her ability to attend college. Research has shown the flaws in this assertion. Although socioeconomic background is associated with college attendance, other factors are。

护士核心胜任能力素质模型的初探素质模型理论已经广泛应用于各个领域，用来规范、引导员工提高素质。

护理专业为人类健康服务，就要求专业人员不仅需要有珍惜生命、关爱生命、对工作认真负责等职业道德，更需要具有较高的专业知识、技术和相应的能力。

优质护理服务工作需要的是复合型的人才，本文通过对基层护士的素质调查分析，进行了基层护士胜任力模型初步的建立，探索一种新的管理模式，能让我们护理人员更清楚的认知自己，提高自己，从而创造综合素质强，护理质量高，患者满意度高的优秀团队。

标签：核心胜任能力；素质模型1973年，美国著名的心理学家McCIeIIand发表了Testing for competence rather than for intelligence一文，提出了一个著名的素质冰山模型，所谓”冰山模型”，就是将人员个体素质的不同表现划分为表面的”冰山以上部分”和深藏的”冰山以下部分”。

1冰山模型与护理素质要素护理工作很复杂，总是有的护士游刃有余；有的护士手忙脚乱，在护理实践工作中，我们发现：同样的工作如血滤、静脉注射，不同的人做起来总有区别，护理质量的提高，关键在于人员素质的提高，只有高素质的护理队伍，才能造就高标准的护理质量。

人个体差异多且复杂多变。

从专业的角度讲就是不同的人对工作的认知可度量性差，难以进行比较。

那么，有没有可靠、有效的方法来确定护士对工作的胜任力呢？是否能如KPI（绩效）那样制定出可以衡量的指标呢？下面我们引进胜任力冰山模型进行分析。

所谓”冰山模型”，就是将人员个体素质的不同表现方式划分为表面的”冰山以上部分”和深藏的”冰山以下部分”。

其中，”冰山以上部分”包括基本知识、基本技能，是外在表现，是容易了解与测量的部分，相对而言也比较容易通过培训来改变和发展；而”冰山以下部分”包括社会角色、自我形象、特质和动机，是人内在的、难以测量的部分。

它们不太容易受外界的影响而改变，但却对人员的行为与表现起着关键性的作用，见图1。

网约车出租司机胜任力模型构建摘要：网约车行业的快速发展给出租车司机带来了新的挑战。

从而，市场对出租车司机的各项素质和业务技能提出了更高的要求。

本文以滴滴出租车司机为例，基于他们的工作模式和岗位特点，结合文献分析和对全班同学采访获得的47份行为事件访谈文本的分析，构建了滴滴出租车司机胜任素质模型。

该模型包含情绪稳定性、工作耐受力、适应力、语言表达能力、真诚、应急能力、耐心、交通法规、身体素质、责任心、共情、察言观色共14个维度48个指标。

在此基础上，使用SPSS软件对模型进行探索性因素分析，结果表明：所建立的滴滴出租车司机胜任特征模型具有一定的科学性和实用性，并且依据胜任素质模型对滴滴出租车司机的选拔工作提出了建议。

关键词：滴滴出租车司机；胜任特征；行为事件访谈引言网约车行业的快速发展是共享经济进步的成果之一，它不仅为人们提供了更加便利的出行，也大大推动了出租汽车行业的优化与改良，促进了经济的发展。

然而，在网约车行业大力发展的同时，也带来了很多的安全隐患，网约车司机的业务水平层次不齐，更有甚者犯下了刑事案件。

有报告指出，“随着网约车的合法化，网约车市场逐步呈现优胜劣汰的趋势。

自2015年滴滴打车与快滴合并，到2016年8月滴滴收购优步中国的业务，到如今存活的网约车软件屈指可数，滴滴成为网约车代名词。

”考虑到滴滴出行平台相关网约车司机处于网约车司机的主体地位，我们以“滴滴”为关键词，以2017年9月1日至2018年8月31日为年度区间，在中国裁判文书网上共检索出1136份刑事判决书。

其中，滴滴出行平台相关网约车司机作为犯罪人的判决书高达122份。

因此，我们认为提高滴滴出租司机队伍素质和保障行车安全的这件事情迫在眉睫。

在滴滴公司快速发展的过程中，滴滴司机是最重要的组成部分，是行车安全的核心，在企业运行过程中起关键作用。

滴滴司机的素质水平直接决定了客户乘坐过程中是否能够安全以及事故发生的比率。

因此，从滴滴公司的运行特点出发，构建滴滴出租车司机胜任素质模型，依据胜任素质模型来指导和加强滴滴出租司机选拔工作，从而达到提高滴滴出租司机队伍素质和保障行车安全的目的。

国际中文教师胜任力研究现状摘要：“汉语国际推广”伴随着中国经济实力和国际地位的提高而提出不仅是国家也是国际中文教育事业的合理延伸。

然而伴随着“汉语热”不断兴起国际中文教师师资短缺和选拔困难成为当下亟待解决的问题。

与此同时，国际中文教师已经成为我们研究国际中文教育中一个不可忽视的重要因素。

国际中文教师自身的综合素质决定着其教学工作的质量，作为国际中文教育的核心力量，其胜任力关系到自身的发展和前景，因此对国际中文教师的胜任力进行评价非常必要。

本文对目前关于国际中文教师胜任力的研究进行了综述，并做出展望。

关键词：国际中文教师胜任力胜任力模型一、胜任力及胜任力模型1.胜任力概念1973年，DavidMcClelland[[1]]在美国《心理学家》杂志上发表了题为《TestingforCompetenceRatherthanforIntelligence》（《测量胜任力而非智力》）的文章，提出用胜任力取代传统的智力测量，强调从第一手材料入手，直接发掘那些能真正影响工作业绩的个人条件和行为特征，为提高组织绩效和促进个人事业成功作出实质性的贡献。

这篇文章的发表，提出了胜任能力的概念，标志着胜任能力运动的开端，也为胜任力理论的诞生奠定了基础，随后掀起了人们对胜任力研究的热潮。

自DavidMcClelland对胜任力的研究基础之后，各个领域的学者纷纷提出了自己对胜任力的理解，进一步丰富和拓展了胜任力的研究内容。

Richard Boyatzis[[2]]（1982）认为胜任力是指某个人所具备的某些潜在特质，而这些潜在特质就是导致和影响个人在工作上表现出更好、更有效率的工作绩效和成果的基本关键特质。

这些潜在特质包括个人动机、特质、技能、自我形象或社会角色或他所使用的知识实体等等。

Spencer[[3]]（1993）认为，胜任力是和参照效标（合格绩效或优秀绩效）有因果联系的个体潜在基本特质，这种基本特质是每个人人性中最深层且最稳定的部分，不仅与其在工作中所担任的职务有关，还能了解其工作预期或实际影响行为与工作绩效的表现。

２４８《商场现代化》２００８年１１月（上旬刊）总第５５６期胜任力概念由麦克利兰（１９７３）提出后，胜任力的理论研究和实际应用随即风靡美国、英国等欧美发达国家。

许多著名的公司，如ＡＴ　＆Ｔ、ＩＢＭ等都建立了自己的胜任力体系。

胜任力系统的合理使用，可以降低员工离职率，从而节约经营成本，由于它具有动态性，还可应付组织突如其来的变化，最重要的是，它可以激发员工的潜能、提高绩效、给组织带来最大的价值。

因此，胜任力模型是２１　世纪一个非常重要的工作发展体系，胜任力模型正迅速地成为本世纪工作发展的标准和业绩管理标准。

一、胜任力及胜任力模型的基本内涵１．胜任力的含义１９７３年，ＭｃＣｌｅｌｌａｎｄ在美国《心理学家》杂志上发表了题为《Ｔｅｓｔｉｎｇ　ｆｏｒ　Ｃｏｍｐｅｔｅｎｃｅ　Ｒａｔｈｅｒ　ｔｈａｎ　ｆｏｒ　Ｉｎｔｅｌｌｉｇｅｎｃｅ》（《测试胜任力而非智力》）的文章，提出用胜任力取代传统的智力测量，强调从第一手材料入手，直接发掘那些能真正影响工作业绩的个人条件和行为特征，为提高组织绩效和促进个人事业成功做出实质性的贡献。

同时。

他还提出进行基于胜任能力的有效测验的六个原则。

这篇文章的发表，提出了胜任能力的概念，标志着胜任能力运动的开端，也为胜任力理论的诞生奠定了基础，随后掀起了人们对胜任力研究的热潮。

Ｚｅｍｋｅ（１９８２）认为：胜任力是个难以下定义的术语，因为这个问题不是来自其他方面，而是来自一些基本程序和哲学的不同。

从ＭｃＣｌｅｌｌａｎｄ最早提出胜任力定义开始，学者们又提出了许多不同的定义，但是至今学术界都没有一个统一的定义。

以下表是对各学者提出的胜任力定义的汇总。

表　胜任力定义汇总汇总上述众多学者对胜任力的定义，可以发现有的偏重特质，有的偏重行为，但这些不同定义都有一定的共同点：与特定工作相关，具有动态性；以绩效标准为参照；包含一些个人的特征，是个人潜在特性或行为，如：知识、技能、自我概念、特质和动机等。

２．胜任力模型的含义胜任力模型指的是担任某一特定任务角色所需要具备的胜任力的总和，它是胜任力的结构形式。