Development of classification and grading performance evaluation indicators for public health staff in district CDCs based on job competencies

ObjectiveTo explore the establishment of performance assessment indicators for the classification and grading of public health staff in district-level Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCs), and to provide a basis for such evaluations.MethodsThrough literature review and group interviews, performance evaluation indicators were developed based on competency evaluation. Experts were invited to evaluate the weight of performance evaluation indicators for public health staff from different categories, with the average value used to represent the weight of each indicator.ResultsTwenty-nine experts from universities in Shanghai, municipal CDCs, and district CDCs participated, yielding an expert authority coefficient of 0.86. The performance evaluation indicators for department managers were categorized into three levels, with 4 indicators at the primary level, 16 indicators at the secondary level, and 42 indicators at the tertiary level, while those for general staff included 4 primary indicators, 15 secondary indicators, and 36 tertiary indicators. Significant differences were observed in the weight coefficients of the primary indicators (internal operations, professional work, and learning and growth) between department managers and general staff. The top three secondary indicators for department managers were department management, monitoring and prevention, and level of expertise. For mid-level and senior staff, the top three secondary indicators were monitoring and prevention, level of expertise, and research work. The top three secondary indicators for junior staff were monitoring and prevention, professional expertise, and professional attitude. No significant statistical differences were found among tertiary indicators.ConclusionThe developed performance evaluation indicators are reliable. Staff at different levels and classifications should be evaluated using different performance evaluation standards to accurately reflect individual performance and contributions.

Publication Details

Journal
SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.19428/j.cnki.sjpm.2025.24455
Primary Topic
Public Health Policies and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Development of classification and grading performance evaluation indicators for public health staff in district CDCs based on job competencies

SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Public Health Policies and Education
article

Development of classification and grading performance evaluation indicators for public health staff in district CDCs based on job competencies

article en

Abstract

ObjectiveTo explore the establishment of performance assessment indicators for the classification and grading of public health staff in district-level Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCs), and to provide a basis for such evaluations.MethodsThrough literature review and group interviews, performance evaluation indicators were developed based on competency evaluation. Experts were invited to evaluate the weight of performance evaluation indicators for public health staff from different categories, with the average value used to represent the weight of each indicator.ResultsTwenty-nine experts from universities in Shanghai, municipal CDCs, and district CDCs participated, yielding an expert authority coefficient of 0.86. The performance evaluation indicators for department managers were categorized into three levels, with 4 indicators at the primary level, 16 indicators at the secondary level, and 42 indicators at the tertiary level, while those for general staff included 4 primary indicators, 15 secondary indicators, and 36 tertiary indicators. Significant differences were observed in the weight coefficients of the primary indicators (internal operations, professional work, and learning and growth) between department managers and general staff. The top three secondary indicators for department managers were department management, monitoring and prevention, and level of expertise. For mid-level and senior staff, the top three secondary indicators were monitoring and prevention, level of expertise, and research work. The top three secondary indicators for junior staff were monitoring and prevention, professional expertise, and professional attitude. No significant statistical differences were found among tertiary indicators.ConclusionThe developed performance evaluation indicators are reliable. Staff at different levels and classifications should be evaluated using different performance evaluation standards to accurately reflect individual performance and contributions.

SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Openalex Percentile: Top 37%
Public Health Policies and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Development of classification and grading performance evaluation indicators for public health staff in district CDCs based on job competencies · SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS