Assessment procedures and processes that is actively promoted and encouraged within AltanaESP Network & System, essentially focus on establishing and sustaining an interactive assessment monitoring cycle of…

  • negotiated goal setting (first CPD-goals, which are refined to PLP-objectives and manifest as a SDS-action steps),
  • the continuous monitoring of assessment results and outcomes (both by the AltanaESP Locksmith or SP and the learner him-/herself applying a negotiated SBG to do so),
  • frequent evaluations to determine productivity of critical outcomes identified or expectation defined/formulated and
  • initiating SMART corrective strategies (if and when necessary) to establish and sustain SMARTER actions and behaviors (i.e. habits).

The AltanaESP Network & System assessment procedures are founded in and based on a productive balance and combination of…

  1. quantitative assessment,
  2. qualitative assessment and
  3. cumulative assessment

…to reliably and validly reflected/represent past experiences, present choices and possible actions which are focused on exploring and obtaining alternative futures.

In essence, any form of assessments deployed and used, have the sole purpose of extracting, collecting and processing data to extrapolate reliable and valid information that can be used to envision “the-end-goal” (i.e. an individual's dreams & destiny) and apply the information in a reverse engineering mapping to determine next steps to be taken in the present (i.e. how to apply the power of now & seize the moment).

It might seem that the assessment procedures/processes encouraged by the AltanaESP Network & System are “completely new developments and discoveries”. This isn't true. Network assessments and System instruments and procedures, merely incorporates both the familiar traditional assessment and recent dynamic assessment methodologies in a different, more efficient and balanced combination, which offer an accountable, reliable, valid and meaningful “description” or “reflection” or “explanation” of an individual's personal history, his/her past/present experiences, prevailing circumstances and present interactions for an improved PVC-understanding.

The most effective way to explain the principles of the AltanaESP assessment methodology, is by means of the following table which compare - both the similarities and differences - between the traditional, dynamic and AltanaESP way of dealing with assessment within the multidisciplinary network of services.

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY COMPARISON1) TABLE
TRADITIONAL ASSESSMENTS (TA) DYNAMIC ASSESSMENTS (DA) AltanaESP ASSESSMENTS (PVC)
Primarily Overt Type Assessments Primarily Covert Type Assessments Primarily Action Scales
Feedback is sometimes (not always) provided at the end of an assessment session and the individual is unable and not allowed to improve on his/her performance (i.e. assessment results) as achieved during the assessment session. Feedback regarding the individual's performance is provided during assessment, allowing the individual (by his/her choosing) to immediately improve on his/her previous performance/results as obtained during the assessment session. Digest and process quantitative assessment scores (TA) in a qualitative manner (DA) to UNDERSTAND the reasons, context and/or underlying dynamics which might - to a greater or lesser extent - influence present assessment results obtained and discuss it with the individual (i.e. PVC-feedback).
Compare an individual’s performance to abstract norms as standardized per selected sample group (success/failure assessment approach). Compares the individual’s performance to his/her own previous performance, no measurement against abstract norms is used (effective/ineffective assessment approach). Use norms to determine the individual’s position relative to the target norm (TA benchmarking). By means of cumulative assessment (e.g. over a 4 year period when deciding on a future career path) based on context specific assessments (DA). The initial assessment battery is repeated on regular intervals over a period of time, to determine noticeable patterns present in the performance results of all assessment implemented.
Assessment procedures are standardized for specific groups of individuals, which portray certain characteristics on which the norms of the test are based. Any individual not belonging to the group could, be “penalized” regarding his/her level of functioning or performance. The main aim is to increase comparative assessment reliability by placing emphasis on assessment objectivity. Individual’s scores are NOT compared with already established norms. Each individual’s unique background (environment and circumstances) is taken into consideration, as to avoid possible unfair penalization of the individual. The main aim is to enhance individual assessment validity, especially with regards to future predictions (emphasis is placed on subjective/interactive assessment to highlight individual potential). Individual performances are compared to evolving norm tables (TA) as applicable, establishing a consistent adaptation of norms to “accurately” reflect the continuous changing environment (DA) and personal circumstances as reliable as is statistically possible and valid.
Assessment is static (multiple-choice questionnaires) and responses are measured against a standardized set of responses and answers. The individual’s responses on items aren’t explored any further. The aim is to evaluate the success level of processes acquired. Assessment is interactive and flexible. Responses are investigated and/or explored and feedback is provided to the individual. Opinions (interpretations) are formulated, contextual to the circumstances of the individual. The aim is to understand the current psyche climate (or umwelt) of the individual. Determine the optimal balance of individual responsibility (i.e. being the best you can be under present circumstances, resources usable and current opportunities available) (DA) within the accepted parameters of group accountability (TA). Thus, interactive assessments are related and correlated to dependency, independency and interdependency levels and cycles of interactions.
Primary Objective: Grouping (classify or categorize) an individual in order to compare him/her with others in terms of benchmarking and cut grades. Assessing a person's current level of acquired knowledge and competencies as either above, equal too or below the accepted norm or standard. Primary Objective: Determine the unique diversity of each individual. Identify an individual’s potential to learn and to master knowledge, skills and interact with his/her environment in a productive and balanced manner. Primary Objective: Assessing the present success level of performance and interaction with his/her environment (TA). Identify why these results are obtained, determine the existing competency gap and also how to bridge such a competency gap (DA). Thus, identify and describe the possible impact or influence of aspects on the future choices of the individual. Ultimately integrate the past, present and future within an accountable Life Development Plan (LDP) context, based on the development and formulation of a responsible Self Development Strategy (SDS) and Personal Learning Plan (PLP) which are directed by a reliable and valid SWOT-analysis and guided by a Continuous Professional Development strategy (CPD) and directed by a personalized GPS sourcing from authentic personal and professional minimum standards.
Decisions about further intervention (i.e. education and/or training) are based on assessment scores obtained (Primary focus on process and results). Assessment information is interpreted and used for planning intervention strategies (i.e. education and/or training) which has already started during the assessment sessions (Primary focus on climate, attitude and intention). Intervention is to facilitate the meaning and purpose of information (i.e. assessment results) collected to assist the individual to interactively establish a LDP (DA) and formulate a SDS based on assessment performances as obtained (TA) (Primary focus on self-actualization as fueled by self-determination, self-empowerment and psyche management).


In order to gain the most benefit and value from any assessment instrument or combination of assessment procedures and the outcomes or results generated - specifically compiled to enhance an individual's present self-awareness, current preparation, collecting and digesting of information and to assist with or coaching self-empowerment quests, psyche management strategies and monitoring of reverse engineering mapping - it is imperative that assessors should realize that any kind of assessment conducted, should always be done with the exclusive purpose to facilitate and guide an individual's aha-erlebnis experiences. Therefore, assessors should constantly consider the following basic assessment yardsticks…

  • There is not one assessment instrument that everyone loves. To begin with… some people hate all kinds of questionnaires without exception. Other people like questionnaires, but hate particular kinds of questions. For example… multiple-choice questions which “force” them to pick between two equally unacceptable choices. Questions that makes a person rank him-/herself against others, makes them uncomfortable. People, who recognize that all jobs entail at least a little bad with the good, tend to zero in on the bad and fail to pick any acceptable options. Other people don't do well with questions about how they would behave in certain situations, because they are inclined to pick how they wish they could behaved. Hence, the format of a questionnaire has to feel right for the individual who is completing it. With questionnaires, as with so many other things in life… “one man's nourishment can be another man's poison”.
  • There is NO specific assessment instrument that always produce better results than any other instruments. For example clients might complete a questionnaire that provide him/her with wonderful suggestions for his/her future self-empowerment and psyche management strategies, but when his/her best friend complete the same questionnaire; their results may be way off the mark. Assessment procedures are based on interactions… one person will love its look, feel, taste and touch, while another person will hate it. And subsequently, how an individual experiences and feels about an assessment procedure will definitely influence the assessment outcome and the validity of results in the end.
  • No assessment instrument should be assumed to be a 100% accurate. Assessors tend to turn to assessment instruments with the hope that it will tell him/her who the person assessed is, what he/she should do and how he/she interacts and functions within his/her environment… if not consciously than unconsciously. No, no, no and NO! It would be utterly irresponsible for an assessor to even think that… “Well this must be who the individual is; the questionnaire and generated report says so”. The outcomes - depending on the environment and context - of assessment results are sometimes way off the mark. All assessment instruments - especially when not completed in all honesty by the client - will find that the assessment outcomes and recommendation will be completely irrelevant. There is countless stories about clients whose lives were sent down a completely wrong path by assessment outcomes that they believed unconditionally. Assessors should regard all assessment outcomes with healthy skepticism. Outcomes of assessment instruments and results are only good for generating and triggering ideas that the client hasn't thought of, or even considered at all. Assessment outcomes are not definitive answers and assessors should use the outcomes only as provisional guidelines to explore and enhance the client's current level of self-awareness.
  • Assessors should conduct several different assessment procedures on different intervals, rather than just one on a specific time. For example… The more questionnaires the client complete, the better the picture of his/her preferences, archetypes and the more relevant and valid the life, career guidelines and advice provided. It's the old idea - at least since the time of World War II - to triangulating the source of a transmission to determine its actual location. Assessors need to “triangulate” assessment results in order to compile and establish a reliable “bigger picture” of the individual's true self, which can be used to help and guide the individual to obtain authentic self-knowledge as launching platform for optimal self-actualization.
  • Let intuition be the guide. Treat no assessment result as gospel. People know far more about themselves than any assessment instrument does. If assessment outcomes seem dead wrong to the client, reject them. Trust your intuition. On the other hand, if a client really likes the suggestions an assessment instrument suggests, don't agonize for ages about whether to trust those suggestions or not… just use it!… NOW! Mainly because, when it feels right for the client …it is in all probably right!
  • Don't let assessment outcomes make us forget that each person are absolutely unique. By nature, any assessment instrument aims to categorize and group individuals by means of the normal distribution curve, statistical norms and theoretical-match; rather than pointing out unique capabilities. Regard each assessment category as a kind of tribe and - and when an assessor don't exercise extreme caution - the client will be lumped with the wrong tribe, labeled and treated accordingly. People decide who they are… not the outcome of some assessment procedure… regardless the scientific and statistical authenticity claims of the assessment instrument.
  • Individuals are never finished with any assessment outcome, unless they've done some good hard thinking about themselves. Thus, assessors must encourage clients to digest, reflect, assimilate and critically question any assessment outcome. Assessment procedures - sometimes - are fun, but just reading and scanning the recommendations isn't good enough. They have to reflect on them, and either discount or act on them. Without comprehensive thinking and consideration, assessment instruments and their “statistical-scientific” results are just another manipulative and diabolical fly-trap for the mentally lazy and spiritually retarded.

First PagePrevious PageBack to overviewNext PageLast Page


1)
All AltanaESP assessments should always cumulate in a triangulated 360 PVC-feedback assessment outcome, based on a balanced synchronicity between traditional, dynamic and AltanaESP contextual assessment combinations which focus on neutralizing the derailing effects of future shock and to truly understandwho am I really!”.
  • Last modified: 18 October, 2018 @ 7:22pm
  • by Jan Viljoen