№ files_lp_4_process_3_119560
File format: docx
Character count: 15305
File size: 40 KB
Year:
2026
Organization:
Pace University
Document Type:
Training and HR Guidance
Target Audience:
Hiring managers, interviewers, HR staff
Topics:
Employee competencies, performance evaluation, behavioral interview questions, staff development
Scope:
University staff and faculty
Sections:
Core competencies, management competencies, sample behavioral questions, interviewer notes
Competency Categories:
Accountability, Service Focus, Continuous Improvement, Respectful, Communications, Continuous Learner, Manages Performance, Staff Development
Purpose:
Guidance for assessing employee performance and interviewing
Format:
Instructional document with examples and guidelines
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Document Title:
PACES Tool Form No. 1 (Self Assessment) Portfolio Assessment for the CES
Program:
Portfolio Assessment for the Career Executive Service (PACES)
Target Position:
Career Executive Service (CES) Candidate
Issuing Framework:
Executive Order No. 24 s. 2017
Country:
Republic of the Philippines
Cluster Reference:
National and Economic Development Authority (NEDA) service and industry clustering/cabinet-level inter-agency committees
Document Type:
Self-Assessment and Competency Portfolio Form
Parts:
Managerial Qualifications; Department/Agency Competency Checklist; Executive/Managerial Competency Portfolio Guide
Competency Framework:
CES Core Competencies
Assessment Format:
Situation, Task, Action and Results (STAR)
Required Declarations:
Oath under penalties of perjury pursuant to pertinent laws, rules, and regulations of the Republic of the Philippines
Signatories:
Applicant; HR Head; Administering Officer
Annex:
Annex “A” Executive / Managerial Competency Portfolio Guide
Exam Diet:
June 2021 (25 to 29 June 2021)
Name:
(as of NRIC)
Note:
Contact No
Examination fee:
SGD1,495.99, SGD2,243.35, SGD3,000.00
Expiry Date:
______ / ______ (MM/YY)
Year:
2020
Region / City:
Switzerland
Topic:
Clinical research, human research projects
Document Type:
Report
Organization:
Swiss Clinical Trial Organisation (SCTO)
Author:
Education Platform of the Swiss Clinical Trial Organisation (SCTO)
Target Audience:
Clinical research professionals, project leaders, and researchers
Period of Validity:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Last Update:
Not specified
) and join the S1NET. For guides with in depth examinations of performance measure definitions, go to:
https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-129783
Table of Contents (Hyperlinks to Sections):
Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ OER Narratives: Notes, Rules, and Instructions OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: Negative Comment Rules Referred OERs Narrative Comment Examples Block a. APFT and HT/WT Block b. Overall Performance Block c. Character (to include SHARP comments) Block d. Presence Block e. Intellect Block f. Leads Block g. Develops Block h. Achieves Senior Rater Potential Senior Rater Narrative Examples Senior Rater Narrative Comment Examples (for potential, promotion, school, etc.) Successive Assignments Other SR Comments (explanations of anything unusual about OER) Effective Words for Evaluations JUNIOR OFFICER PLATE (DA FORM 67-10-1) NOTE: 2LTs who have NOT completed BOLC, will not receive an OER until they complete BOLC (AC and ARNG; USAR officers can receive an OER before completing BOLC). The FROM date will be their commissioning date. All time until their BOLC graduation will be NONRATED on their first OER. OER PROFILING: OERs: Rater and Senior Rater Profiles are CONSTRAINED, meaning Officers are only allowed to grant 49% of each rank they rate with either an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). HOWEVER, if you have an immature profile, and have only just begun rating/senior rating Officers of a certain rank, you are allowed a ONE TIME option of giving one of the first two evaluations you make at a particular grade, an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). OER (OER SUPPORT FORM) PART III: Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ (blocks a., b., and c.): Refer to DA PAM 611-21 (https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/smartbookdapam611-21
) and DA PAM 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management), to assist in the development of PART III, block d. As a minimum, the duty description will include pr:
- Number of personnel supervised, - Amount of resources under the rated officer’s control, - Scope of responsibilities. 3) Descriptions must be clear and concise with emphasis on specific functions required. 4) Note conditions unique to the assignment; e.g. RA officers assigned to FT support duties with RC units or USAR officers assigned to RA units OER NARRATIVES: Notes, Rules, and Instructions Rater and Senior Rater Narratives: - Requires candor and courage; frank and accurate assessment. - Quantify officer’s value relative to peers and do so in concert with rater/senior rater box check. - Are short; tell a simple story about the quality of officer being evaluated. - Are interesting and compelling. - Are looked at by selection board members when they are looking for in-depth information about a rated officer’s performance and potential. - Numbers; 1-10, write them out (e.g. one, two, ten). 11 or higher, write the number; e.g. 11, 15, 105. Exception, when a 1-10 is WITH an 11 or higher; e.g. “5 tool kits with 20 tools each.” - Fashion the narrative to the officer; double check use of “he/his” vs. “she/hers.” - Awards: Awards and/or special recognition received during the rating period may be cited in evaluation comments (for example, “received the Humanitarian Service Medal” or “named the Instructor of the Year”). - Raters and SR CAN use the officer’s name in the narrative; e.g. “1LT Joe was ….” Rater and Rater Narratives: - Focus on PERFORMANCE; explaining what the rated officer did and how well he/she did it. - Focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance. - Raters should advocate the rated officer to the SR. - When there is no SR (due to lack of qualifications), rater’s narrative provides the input on both performance and potential. Senior Rater (SR) and SR Narrative (see SR Rater Narrative section for examples): - Focus on POTENTIAL, 3-5 years out (promotions, command, school, & assignments). - Can amplify box checks by using the narrative to clearly send the appropriate message to selection boards. - CANNOT mention Box Check. - Additional information for when SR is also Rater can be found in DA PAM 623-3, pg. 26, “DA Form 67–10–1, part VI: block c—Senior Rater Narrative.” OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: - School/Course Comments: Bullets about how a Soldier did in a school or course are ONLY allowed if that school did not produce an AER/DA Form 1059. - Narratives are not a laundry list of superlatives – more is not necessarily better. - Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. - Excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. - Techniques aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative; e.g. excessive use of capital letters; unnecessary quotation marks; repeated use of exclamation points; wide spacing between selected words, phrases, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. - Inappropriate references to box checks; e.g “Would be TOP BLOCK if profile allowed” or “absolutely far exceeded the standard”. - Trying to quantify (e.g. “top 2% of my captains”) with a small population. - Stay in your lane/level; avoid comments like “Best 1LT in the Army” unless you’re the Army CoS. - Stating “the best ever”; having 10 in the population, 50 in the profile. - Using overused phrases and clichés that are counterproductive or overused; e.g. stellar, historic, “delivered a dazzling performance,” “hit the ground running,” consummate professional, and unlimited potential. - Using specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier”. - Don’t exaggerate; “If I could prove it, CPT X is an LTC disguised as a CPT.” - Be mindful of what IS NOT said; it can have the same impact as what is said; e.g. NOT having numbers, or quantifiable points. - Don’t say the sa
Note:
en
Topic:
Officer Evaluation, Narrative Guidelines
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Raters, Senior Raters
Year:
2026
Region / city:
Global
Theme:
Education, Healthcare
Document Type:
Guideline
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Healthcare educators, trainers, facilitators
Period of validity:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Not specified
Year:
2023
Region / city:
United States
Topic:
MDS 2023 Updates, Training Plan Design
Document Type:
Guidelines
Organization / Institution:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
Author:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
Target Audience:
Healthcare facilities, staff involved in resident care
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Revision Date:
Not specified
Note:
Year
Topic:
Competency assessment, audit, Corporations Act
Document type:
Logbook, guidance
Target audience:
Applicants for RCA registration, assessors
Period of validity:
3–5 years
Year:
2022
Region / City:
Not specified
Subject:
Medical Assistant Education
Document Type:
Explanatory Note
Institution:
MAERB (Medical Assisting Education Review Board)
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Educational institutions offering Medical Assistant programs
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Virginia
Topic:
Competencies for Direct Support Professionals
Document Type:
Competency Checklist
Organization / Institution:
Virginia’s Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Direct Support Professionals and Supervisors
Period of Effectiveness:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Modifications:
Not specified
Year:
2015
Region / City:
Virginia
Topic:
Developmental Disabilities, Behavioral Support
Document Type:
Guidelines
Agency:
Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services
Author:
Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services
Target Audience:
Direct support staff, professionals in developmental disabilities services
Period of Validity:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
August 2015
Date of Revisions:
None
Context:
Guidelines for developing and monitoring competencies of professionals and direct support staff working with individuals with developmental disabilities in Virginia.
Year:
2015
Region:
Virginia, USA
Type of Document:
Competency Checklist
Issued by:
Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (DBHDS)
Target Audience:
Direct Support Professionals (DSPs) and Supervisors
Related Regulations:
12VAC30-120-515
Evaluation Period:
180 days
Review Frequency:
Annually or as needed
Training Methods:
1:1, group, formal education, online courses, college courses
Skill Assessment Levels:
Basic understanding, Developing, Competent, Proficiency confirmed
Documentation Requirement:
Maintained in personnel files and available for review by DBHDS and DMAS
Note:
Acknowledgements
Year:
2020
Region / City:
McLean, VA / Bethesda, MD
Topic:
Workforce Development, Healthcare
Document Type:
Competency Framework
Organization:
National Association of Community Health Centers
Author:
N/A
Target Audience:
Chief Workforce Officers, HR professionals in healthcare
Period of Validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2023
Region / City:
International
Topic:
Social and Emotional Learning, Education
Document Type:
Educational Model, Guide
Organization / Institution:
Jenny Mosley Consultancy
Author:
Jenny Mosley
Target Audience:
Educators, School Administrators, IB PYP Practitioners
Period of Application:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2026
Region / city:
United Kingdom
Theme:
Nursing Competency Assessment
Document type:
Training Manual
Organization / institution:
SGHT Trust
Author:
SGHT Nursing Competency Group
Target audience:
Trained nurses, nurse managers
Validity period:
Indefinite (unless revised)
Approval date:
Not specified
Date of modifications:
June 2015
Year:
2021
Region / City:
United Kingdom
Subject:
Chemistry
Document Type:
Educational Resource
Institution:
Royal Society of Chemistry
Target Audience:
A-Level Chemistry Students, Educators
Period of Validity:
Two Years
Approval Date:
2021
Date of Modifications:
Not specified
Document type:
Standardized information form
Subject:
Personal and professional profile
Intended audience:
Consultants
Sections included:
Personal information; Core competences; Professional background; Consulting assignments; Vocational training and education; Language skills; Regional experience; Digital competencies; Other competencies; References
Time frame covered:
Professional experience including the last three years
Geographic scope:
International
Language framework referenced:
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
Competency framework referenced:
Digital competence raster
Year:
2023
Region / city:
New Zealand
Subject:
Nursing practice, health care competencies, professional responsibility
Document type:
Self-assessment form
Organization / institution:
Nursing Council of New Zealand
Author:
Nursing Council of New Zealand
Target audience:
Registered Nurses in New Zealand
Effective period:
April 1, 2025 (change in PDRP peer assessment requirement)
Approval date:
2023
Modification date:
2023
Year:
2023
Region / city:
-
Topic:
Emotion and economic decision making
Document type:
Article
Institution:
-
Author:
Tingting Zhang, Ronald Ngetich, Junjun Zhang, Zhenlan Jin, Ling Li
Target audience:
Researchers in psychology and economics
Period of validity:
-
Approval date:
-
Date of changes:
-
Year:
Not specified
Region / City:
Cincinnati
Subject:
Social and Behavioral Sciences Research
Document Type:
Research Protocol Submission Guidelines
Institution / Organization:
University of Cincinnati
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Researchers submitting to the IRB-S
Validity Period:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Modification Date:
Not specified
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Oregon
Topic:
Mental Health, Administrative Hearings
Document Type:
Request Form
Organization / Institution:
Oregon Health Authority
Author:
Oregon Health Authority
Target Audience:
Residents, Authorized Representatives
Effective Period:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified