Date: September 15, 2023 05:09 PM

CANDIDATE: PVAO CANDIDATE

EVALUATION OF CANDIDATE FOR: Supervisory Level

SUMMARY REPORT

Critical Thinking Assessment (NEW)

pvao candidate
(9-15-2023 17:09:00)
Philippine Council for Health Research and
Development

Dimension Score Graphical Representation

Situations involving: deductive, 8/30

inductive, inferential, analytical
and evaluative reasoning

Logic as well as necessary and 7/25

sufficiency of an argument

Reading Comprehension 2/11

Overall Result Score Percentile Rank Interpretation

(Scores are adjusted based on the total of 17 28th Below Average
correct responses less the wrong answers.)

The candidate shows below average critical thinking skills and is unlikely to perform well in positions which
do require taxing problem solving capability.

CANDIDATE OVERALL RANKING

Standard Interpretations

Percentile Range 1st-10th 11th-31st 32nd-72nd 73rd-93rd 94th and above

Interpretation of Results Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent 1

 FACTORS Raw Score Percentile
Management of Performance
4/10 40%
Quality

Staffing and Personnel Actions 6/10 60%

Communications 6/10 60%

Interpersonal Relations 4/10 40%

Problem Analysis and Resolution 4/10 40%

Project Planning 4/10 40%

Direct Supervision 4/10 40%

32/70 46%

Your Over-all Percentile Ranking is:

2nd
The candidate demonstrates minimal understanding of the principles of supervision. He/She needs extensive
leadership training and immersive coaching and mentoring programs to develop much needed skills to become a
successful supervisor.

The percentile ranking relates to a representative sample of Local Managerial Trainees.

2
 Managerial Skills Test
pvao candidate (9-15-2023 17:09:00)
Philippine Council for Health Research and Development

MANAGEMENT SKILLS TEST RESULTS

Raw Score Weighted % Percentile
Knowledge of Management
Concepts and Application 17/ 39 44% 60%
The candidate shows an average capacity in the area of knowledge of management concepts and applications. He/She
should be able to function with average performance as an executive. Whilst he/she should be provided with support if
more complex situations arise and may well show improved performance with additional training.

Raw Score Weighted % Percentile

Entrepreneurial Skills 5/ 10 50% 51%

The candidate shows an average capacity in the area of entrepreneurship. He/She should be able to function with
average performance as an executive required to make strategic decisions. He/She should be provided with support if
more complex situations arise.

Raw Score Weighted % Percentile

Strategic Thinking and
Planning 45/ 84 54% 1%
This is a poor score in the area of strategic thinking and planning. The candidate without very strong support is unlikely
to succeed in a position requiring either of these two abilities as a significant part of their work.

Raw Score Weighted % Percentile

Decision-Making and
Problem-Solving 10/ 25 40% 7%
This is a poor showing in the area of decision making and problem solving. The candidate without very strong support
is unlikely to succeed in a position involving either of these.

OVERALL SCORE AND PERCENTAGE OVERALL PERCENTILE RANKING

When compared to a representative sample of Filipino applicants for

77/158 (49%) 1st management positions or management development programs

3
 COMPETENCY RATING:
3
Requires Development

SCORE INTERPRETATION
Requires The person's demonstration of competency is emerging,
Development therefore needing close supervision and guidance.
The person consistently meets the basic requirements
Satisfactory
of the competency, therefore approaching proficiency.
The person is proficient and even exceeds basic
Competent
requirements.
The person has mastered the competency and shows
Outstanding
exemplary in demonstrating it.

4
 Profiles Ethics Oriented Personality Assessment
Dimension STEN Score Interpretation
Agreeableness
Helpfulness 1 Low
Conscientiousness
Orderliness 5 Moderate
Emotional Stability
Capacity to Withstand Stress 10 High
Extraversion
Alertness 1 Low
Openness to Experience
Openness to Aesthetics 1 Low

[ ] Highly Recommended

[ ] Recommended
Recommendation:
[ ] Recommended with Reservation

[ ] Not Recommended
(Psychologists' comment here)

Prepared by: Noted by:

_______________________________ ________________________________
Assessment Specialist Licensed Psychologist