Within the context of the analysis, the competencies: Systems Thinking, Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity, Interpersonal Competence, Action Competence, and Strategic Management were found to be necessary.
Thus again, the business processes section seems particularly suitable for our empirical analysis of the structure of action competence.
As a result the current examination appears neither adequate nor accurate as an instrument to capture action competence.
For the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry, competence assessments of industrial managers rely mainly on final examinations that attempt to measure not just knowledge but also action competence.
To evaluate this test instrument, this article considers two questions: (1) Can the test assess action competence with validity, and (2) how reliable are the corresponding assessment results?
In the mid-1990s, the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (Kultusministerkonferenz) legally adopted the concept of action competence as a central target.
To implement these goals, the test designers operationalized action competence as the three mutually exclusive process dimensions in Figure 1: planning, executing, and monitoring (GCCI 2009).
Both fostering and measuring action competence remain central targets of vocational education and training research; adequate measurement approaches clearly are prerequisites for international, large-scale assessments.
If action competence is not to devolve into simply a buzzword, the concept must be salient and manifest in final examinations.
However, the concept measured is not actually action competence, as intended, but rather content-related, technical knowledge, in an expertise-related sense.
