U.S. Office of Personnel Management - Ensuring the Federal Government has an effective civilian workforce
Job Qualification System for Trades and Labor Occupations
RATING APPLICANTS
INTRODUCTION
In the rating process, raters use the examining plan as the basis for making judgments about available applicant information. Although specific rating instructions concerning the elements for the job and the point values to be assigned are helpful, good judgment of the rater is essential in arriving at final ratings.
In forming judgments about applicant information, raters should be mindful of the importance of the required ability in jobs the applicant has previously held; the conclusiveness of all the available evidence which can be used to prove how well the applicant is qualified; and the degree to which the applicant possesses the required ability.
Where possible, agency employees with a thorough knowledge of the trade should be called upon either as raters or as consultants to provide technical advice to raters. Raters with expert background in the trade or occupation can usually relate an applicant's claims to the kind of position he has held, and decide what the real nature of the experience and training has been. For example, an expert electronic mechanic would realize that a person whose assembly experience has been limited to assembling radio chassis should not be credited with working to finer tolerances than that required by such work.
RATING CONSIDERATIONS
Emphasizing quality
The emphasis in rating is on quality and intensity of experience and training. A lengthy experience record of low quality may prove only that a competitor lacks ability to learn or progress. The quality of past performance is determined by careful analysis of the statements of the applicants and, if practicable, of persons who furnish corroborative information.
Evaluating different kinds of evidence
In making judgments, the rater must consider all information he has obtained, weighing each piece of evidence according to its strength or weakness, and assigning a point value to the element which, in his judgment, best represents how well the applicant is qualified to perform the particular skill, knowledge or ability on the job. When evidences from different sources are not in agreement, the rater must evaluate the sources in terms of the relative strengths of each. For example, applicants who meet the job requirements by proven experience are rated eligible even though they fail the written test.
Crediting overall experience
The relevant aspects of an individual's total experience and training are rated as to the extent to which they satisfy the requirements of the job element. Information for one element on the application form may indicate experience that is usable in other elements.
Experience with equipment other than that used in the position to be filled should be considered insofar as it would help the applicant learn and perform the duties of the position. Applicants are rated according to their capacity or potential to perform regardless of how they came by this knowledge and skill. For example-
An applicant for an automotive mechanic had experience as an automotive mechanic and as a maintenance electrician, but he had never done electrical troubleshooting on automobiles. In rating the application for a job requiring electrical troubleshooting on automotive equipment, the rater would take into account the extent to which the individual's skill as an electrical maintenance worker could be used on automotive equipment.
Relating experience and training to the job applied for
A particular qualification requirement is not considered in the abstract, but is considered in its relationship to the job. For example, if applicants are experienced in some, but not all, areas of boiler maintenance, the point value they received in the element, Preventive Maintenance, should be in proportion to the extent to which their knowledge of boiler maintenance would permit them to operate in all the areas needed on the job.
Raters should keep in mind that applicants may have understated or overstated their abilities and experience. For this reason, information on applicants from other sources should be considered, if available.
THE RATING PROCESS
Eliminating obvious ineligibles
A review is first made of all available information to give the rater an overall picture of the applicant's qualifications.
On the basis of this review, the qualifications are evaluated first against the prescribed screen out element. Those applicants who appear to possess at least the minimal acceptable qualification requirement (2-point value) described in the crediting plan are considered for further rating. Those who obviously do not meet the 2-point requirement are rated ineligible and are eliminated. For those who appear to be eligible, no final point value is assigned to the screen-out element at this time.
Rating potential eligibles
The potential eligibles are then rated against each element. The first element is evaluated by comparing it with the point value descriptions and examples for that element contained in the crediting plan. The final selection of point value is made only after consideration of all other available information. For example-
The applicants' statement for the element, Ability To Keep Records and Make Reports, indicates ability to set up and maintain card files, keep time and attendance records, and to make written reports.
The experience statement matches the description and examples given in the crediting plan for the 3-point value. However, the information in one qualification questionnaire from a former supervisor stated that the applicant was weak in this respect. The other available information did not support the applicant's statement. The overall employment record did not show that this ability was important in jobs he or she had held.
A judgment must then be made whether to rate the element 3 points as indicated by the applicant's statement, or rate 2 points because other information indicates that he or she is barely acceptable in this element.
Point values are applied to the remaining elements in the same manner. The screen-out element is assigned a point value last since this order of rating elements permits the rater to gain an overall picture of the applicant's qualifications and to relate the worth of all elements to the screen-out element. Applicants must receive 2 points on the screen-out element to be rated eligible.
An applicant may be weak in several elements and still be eligible, but only if the weaknesses are compensated for by strengths in other elements. In order to demonstrate that strengths compensate for weaknesses, an applicant must, in addition to meeting the screen-out, have an average of two credits on all the elements. The total raw score must be at least equal to one-half the total number of points possible. If six elements (including the screen-out element) are used, the applicant must earn at least 12 points in order to be eligible.
Reconciling scores of raters
It may be desirable to use two or more raters, particularly for the more complex jobs. In that instance, consideration must be given to differences in ratings which might occur.
If the raters' total raw scores vary by more than 2 points, they should discuss the matter and reach agreement on a final rating.
If the raters vary by only 1 or 2 points, the total raw scores may be averaged to arrive at a final rating.
If a difference occurs in the rating of the screen-out element, or if the difference results in a rating of eligible by one rater and ineligible by another, the raters resolve the matter through discussion.
-
Converting raw scores
The total raw score is converted to a rating of from 70 to 100 by using the following conversion table:
Conversion Table
If total raw score is - Converted rating is indicated below when the number of elements is - 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
40
100
39
99
38
97
37
96
36
94
100
35
39
98
34
91
97
33
90
95
32
88
93
100
31
87
92
98
30
85
90
96
29
84
88
94
28
82
87
93
100
27
81
85
91
98
26
79
83
89
96
25
78
82
87
94
24
76
80
85
91
100
23
75
78
83
89
98
22
73
77
81
87
95
21
72
75
79
85
93
20
70
73
78
83
90
100
19
72
76
81
88
97
18
70
74
79
85
94
17
72
76
83
91
16
70
74
80
88
100
15
72
78
85
96
14
70
75
82
93
13
73
79
89
12
70
76
85
11
73
81
10
70
78
9
74
8
70
Page Updated 11 July 2000
U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415 | (202) 606-1800 | TTY (202) 606-2532