en pl
en pl

Central European Management Journal

Zobacz wydanie
Rok 9/2022 
Tom 30 
Numer 3

Competency-Based Tests as a Tool for Teacher Evaluation in Higher Education Institutions

Kamila Ludwikowska
Wrocław University of Science and Technology

9/2022 30 (3) Central European Management Journal

DOI 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.83


Purpose: This study aims to verify the quality of the teacher competency inventory as a pedagogical competencies measure of teachers in higher education institutions.

Design methodology: The development and testing of the teacher competency inventory covered three phases: (1) item generation, (2) dimension identification and data reduction (factor analysis), and (3) scale evaluation. The current study tests its construct validity, using an independent samples t-test, variance analysis, and Anova in two different environments.

Findings: Results indicate that the inventory measures unitary constructs and provide its predictive capacity. The developed instrument measures levels of future-oriented pedagogical competencies with comparable reliability and validity.

Practical implications: Teacher competency inventory may be applied to teachers’ recruitment, selection, development, and performance evaluation with the goal to identify current and required levels of competencies. The inventory allows one to compare teacher competencies with the expected competency profile. Possible differences may indicate deficits or overruns in relation to the expected profile.

Originality: Teacher competency inventory is a meaningful tool to improve human resource practices – including recruitment, selection, and teacher performance monitoring – and to indicate the current and required level of competencies. The identified competency gap can help plan teacher development to increase job performance.


  1. Adnot, M. et al. (2017). Teacher Turnover, Teacher Quality, and Student Achievement in DCPS. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 54–76. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716663646 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anastasi, A. & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological Testing, 7th edition. Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  3. Armstrong, M. (2009). Armstrong's Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice. Kogan Page, Business & Economics. [Google Scholar]
  4. Armstrong, M., & Taylor, S. (2014). Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice. 13 th edition. [Google Scholar]
  5. Baartman, L., Gulikers, J. & Dijkstra, A. (2013). Factors influencing assessment quality in higher vocational education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(8), 978–997. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.771133 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergsmann, E., Klug, J., Burger, Ch., Först, N. & Spiel, Ch. (2018). The Competence Screening Questionnaire for Higher Education: Adaptable to the needs of a study programme. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(4), 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1378617 [Google Scholar]
  7. Boyatzis, R. (1982). The Competent Manager. Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohen, D.J. (2015). HR past, present and future: A call for consistent practices and a focus on competencies. Human Resource Management Review, 25(2), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.01.006 [Google Scholar]
  9. Colliver, J.A., Conlee, M.J., & Verhulst, S.J. (2012). From test validity to construct validity ... and back?, Medical Education, 46(4), 366–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04194.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Cronbach, L.J., & Meehl, P.E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dani, A.A., & Mhunpiew, N. (2019). A Development of an Academic Leadership Model for Higher Education in India. Scholar: Human Sciences, 11(1), 45–45. [Google Scholar]
  12. Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). One Piece of the Whole: Teacher Evaluation as Part of a Comprehensive System for Teaching and Learning. American Educator, 38(1), 4–13. [Google Scholar]
  13. Embretson, S., & Gorin, J. (2001). Improving construct validity with cognitive psychology Principles. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(4), 343–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2001.tb01131.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Firestone, W.A. & Donaldson, M.L. (2019). Teacher evaluation as data use: what recent research suggests. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 31(3), 289–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-019-09300-z [Google Scholar]
  15. Forer, B., & Zumbo, B.D. (2011). Validation of multilevel constructs: Validation methods and empirical findings for the EDI. Social Indicators Research, 103(2), 231–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9844-3 [Google Scholar]
  16. Graziano, A.M. & Raulin, M.L. (2000). Research Methods: A process of inquiry fourth edition. Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hager, P., Gonczi, A. & Athanasou, J. (1994). General Issues about Assessment of Competence. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 19(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293940190101 [Google Scholar]
  18. Keller-Schneider, M., Zhong, H.F. & Yeung, A.S. (2020). Competence and challenge in professional development: teacher perceptions at different stages of career. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(1), 36–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2019.1708626 [Google Scholar]
  19. Ludwikowska, K.H. (2019). Competence inventory: an empirical study on future-oriented competences of the teaching profession in higher education in India. Education and Training, 61(9), 1123–1137. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-12-2018-0266 [Google Scholar]
  20. McNamara, G., and J. O'Hara (2008). The Importance of the Concept of Self-evaluation in the Changing Landscape of Educational Policy. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34, 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2008.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Muñiz-Rodríguez, L. et al. (2017). Developing and validating a competence framework for secondary mathematics student teachers through a Delphi method. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(4), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2017.1296539 [Google Scholar]
  22. Pak, K., Dorien, T.A., Kooij, M., De Lange, A.H., & Van Veldhoven, M.J.P.M. (2019). Human Resource Management and the ability, motivation and opportunity to continue working: A review of quantitative studies. Human Resource Management Review, 29(3), 336–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ramsden, P., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Martin, E. (2007). University teachers' experiences of academic leadership and their approaches to teaching. Learning and instruction, 17(2), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.01.004 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ridei, N., Khomenko, O., Іvanenko, I., Filyanina, N., & Poberezhets, H. (2021). Competence of teachers of HEIS in the context of lifelong learning. Laplage em Revista, 7(1), 516–530. https://doi.org/10.24115/S2446-6220202171853p.516-530 [Google Scholar]
  25. Rivas-Ruiz, R., Pérez-Rodríguez, M., & Talavera J.O. (2013). Clinical research XV. From the clinical judgment to the statistical model. Difference between means. Student's t-test. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc., 51(3), 300–303. [Google Scholar]
  26. Schildkamp, K. (2007). The utilization of a Self-evaluation Instrument for Primary Education. PhD diss., Twente University, The Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  27. Standards for educational and psychological testing (1985). American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. [Google Scholar]
  28. Turker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9780-6 [Google Scholar]
  29. Ulrich, D., & Dulebohn, J.H. (2015). Are we there yet? What's next for HR? Human Resource Management Review, 25(2), 188–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.01.004 [Google Scholar]
  30. Westen, D., & Rosenthal, R. (2005). Improving construct validity: Cronbach, Meehl, and Neurath's ship: Comment. Psychological Assessment, 17(4), 409–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.17.4.409 [Google Scholar]
  31. Vanhoof, J., S. de Maeyer, & P. van Petegem (2010). Variation in the Conduct and the Quality of Self-evaluations: A Multi-level Path Analysis. Educational Studies, 37, 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2010.506326 [Google Scholar]
  32. Yeşilçınar, S., & Çakır, A. (2020). Suggesting a Teacher Assessment and Evaluation Model for Improving the Quality of English Teachers. Education and Science, 45(202), 363–393. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.8463 [Google Scholar]
  33. Xu, K. (2011). An empirical study of Confucianism: Measuring Chinese academic leadership. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(4), 644–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318911405621 [Google Scholar]

Kompletne metadane

Cytowanie zasobu

APA style

Ludwikowska, Kamila (2022). Competency-Based Tests as a Tool for Teacher Evaluation in Higher Education Institutions. (2022). Competency-Based Tests as a Tool for Teacher Evaluation in Higher Education Institutions. Central European Management Journal, 30(3), 85–111. https://doi.org/10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.83 (Original work published 9/2022n.e.)

MLA style

Ludwikowska, Kamila. „Competency-Based Tests As A Tool For Teacher Evaluation In Higher Education Institutions”. 9/2022n.e. Central European Management Journal, t. 30, nr 3, 2022, ss. 85–111.

Chicago style

Ludwikowska, Kamila. „Competency-Based Tests As A Tool For Teacher Evaluation In Higher Education Institutions”. Central European Management Journal, Central European Management Journal, 30, nr 3 (2022): 85–111. doi:10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.83.