Expert approach in evaluating specialists

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Expert approach in evaluating specialists

Oleksandr Sannikov, doctor of Psychology, professor, Department of Theory and Methodology of Applied Psychology, State institution «South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky». Odessa, Ukraine.

Abstract

The article presents the results of a comparative analysis of expert evaluations and self-evaluations of professionally important personality traits of a specialist, the ratio of personality type indicators, decision-making and decisiveness of the individual. The paper highlights the advantage of the expert approach, areas of its use, features of application at evaluating experts' potential, a level of their professionalism. Approaches to expert evaluation of the firm's staff are evaluated, namely modelling of business situations, use of a specially organized evaluation procedure, creation of reference «images of the subject», special requirements for training and selection of evaluation experts, including the use of independent evaluation centers. The author analyzes the current state of the problems of the expert approach in assessing the components of the specialist's personality structure (professionally important qualities, personality traits and personal qualities), the professionalization of the individual as a whole. Differences in expert evaluation and self-evaluation of professionally important personality qualities are theoretically substantiated and empirically confirmed. The relevance of the study is conditioned by the need for practice in the selection, recruiting, adaptation of personnel, in improving the efficiency of professionals' resources and potential, in the theoretical and methodological generalization of research expertise, in developing technological procedures and methods of expert evaluation. A representative sample of respondents aged 25-47 with a total number of 73 people was formed, two groups of people were allocated - the first group used expert evaluation (31 people), the second one - self-evaluation of personality's professionally important qualities, decisiveness and decision-making (42 people). The results of the diagnosis were obtained using a set of methods: «Decision-making questionnaire» by G. Eizenko; «Multidimensional scales of decisiveness» by O. I. Sannikov, «Personal factors of decision-making» by T.V. Kornilova, «Indicator of personality's social type» by D. Cairsey (expert version), «Test-questionnaire of qualitative indicators of risk propensity» by O.P. Sannikova, S.V. Bykova, «Questionnaire on the study of the impulsivity level» by V.A. Losenkov. The description of interrelations of expert evaluations and self-evaluations of the traits of individual's decision-making is presented. The differences between expert evaluation and self-evaluation of personality traits and personal qualities of a professional are shown. The direction of developing the expert approach for solving the tasks of professional counseling is allocated - an evaluation and forecasting the parameters of a choice and decision-making at persons with different structure of personality indicators.

Keywords: expert evaluation, self-evaluation, decision-making, professionally important qualities, personality traits, personality's decisiveness.

Анотація

Експертний підхід в оцінці професіонала

Санніков Олександр Ілліч, доктор психологічних наук, професор, кафедра теорії та методики практичної психології ДЗ «Південноукраїнський національний педагогічний університет імені К.Д. Ушинського», м. Одеса, Україна

У статті презентовані результати порівняльного аналізу експертних оцінок і самооцінок професійно важливих якостей особистості професіонала, співвідношення показників типу особистості, прийняття рішень і рішимості особистості. Показана перевага експертного підходу, області його використання, особливості застосування при оцінці потенціалу фахівців, рівня їх професіоналізму. Оцінюються підходи до проведення експертної оцінки персоналу фірми: моделювання ситуацій діяльності, використання спеціальне організованої процедури оцінки, створення еталонів «образів суб'єкта», спеціальні вимоги по підготовці й добору експертів оцінювання, включаючи використання незалежних Центрів оцінювання. Розглянутий поточний стан проблематики експертного підходу в оцінці компонентів структури особистості професіонала (професійно важливих якостей, властивостей особистості й особистісних властивостей), професіоналізації особистості в цілому. Теоретично обґрунтовані й емпірично підтверджені відмінності в експертній оцінці й самооцінці професійно важливих властивостей особистості професіонала. Актуальність дослідження обумовлена необхідністю практики в відборі, доборі, адаптації персоналу, у підвищенні ефективності використання ресурсів і потенціалу фахівців, у теоретико-методологічному узагальненні досліджень експертного підходу, у розробці технологічних процедур і приймань проведення експертної оцінки. Сформована репрезентативна вибірка обстежених у віці 25-47 років загальною чисельністю 73 людини, виділено дві групи осіб - перша використовувала експертну оцінку (31 особа), друга - самооцінку професійно важливих якостей, рішучості й прийняття розв'язків особистістю (42 особи). Результати діагностики отримані за допомогою комплексу методик: «Опитувальник прийняття рішення» Г. Айзенка; «Мультидимензіональні шкали рішимості» О.І. Саннікова, «Особистісні фактори прийняття рішень» Т.В. Корнілової, «Індикатор соціального типу особистості» Д. Кєйрси (експертна версія), «Тест-опитувальник якісних показників схильності до ризику» (ризик-риса) О.П. Саннікової, С.В Бикової, «Опитувальник дослідження рівня імпульсивності» В.А. Лосєнкова.

Представлений опис взаємозв'язків експертних оцінок і самооцінок властивостей прийняття рішень особистістю. Показані відмінності експертної оцінки й самооцінки властивостей особистості й особистісних властивостей професіонала. Виділений напрямок розвитку експертного підходу для рішення завдань професійного консультування - оцінка й прогнозування параметрів вибору й прийняття рішення в осіб з різним складом показників індивідуальності.

Ключові слова: експертна оцінка, самооцінка, прийняття рішення, професійно важливі якості, властивості особистості, рішимість особистості.

Аннотация

Экспертный подход в оценке профессионала

Санников Александр Ильич, доктор психологических наук, професор кафедра теории и методики практической психологи ГУ «Южноукраинский национальный педагогический университет имени К.Д. Ушинского». Одесса, Украина

В статье презентированы результаты сравнительного анализа экспертных оценок и самооценок профессионально важных свойств личности профессионала, соотношение показателей типа личности, принятия решений и решимости личности. Показано преимущество экспертного подхода, области его использования, особенности применения при оценке потенциала специалистов, уровня их профессионализма. Оцениваются подходы к проведению экспертной оценки персонала фирмы: моделирование ситуаций деятельности, использование специально организованной процедуры оценки, создание эталонных «образов субъекта», специальные требования по подготовке и отбору экспертов оценивания, включая использование независимых Центров оценивания. Рассмотрено текущее состояние проблематики экспертного подхода в оценке компонент структуры личности профессионала (профессионально важных качеств, свойств личности и личностных свойств), професионализации личности в целом. Теоретически обоснованы и эмпирически подтверждены различия в экспертной оценке и самооценке профессионально важных свойств личности профессионала. Актуальность исследования обусловлена необходимостью практики в отборе, подборе, адаптации персонала, в повышении эффективности использования ресурсов и потенциала специалистов, в теоретико-методологическом обобщении исследований экспертного подхода, в разработке технологических процедур и приемов проведения экспертной оценки. Сформирована репрезентативная выборка обследованных в возрасте 25-47 лет общей численностью 73 человека, выделено две группы лиц - первая использовала экспертную оценку (31 человек), вторая - самооценку профессионально важных качеств, решимости и принятия решений личностью (42 человека). Результаты диагностики получены с помощью комплекса методик: «Опросник принятия решений» Г. Айзенка; «Мультидимензиональные шкалы решимости» А.И. Санникова, «Личностные факторы принятия решений» Т.В. Корниловой, «Индикатор социального типа личности» Д. Кейрси (экспертная версия), «Тест-опросник качественных показателй склонности к риску» О.П. Санниковой, С.В Быковой, «Опросник иссследования уровня импульсивности» В.А. Лосенкова.

Представлено описание взаимосвязей экспертных оценок и самооценок свойств принятия решений личностью. Показаны отличия экспертной оценки и самооценки свойств личности и личностных свойств профессионала. Выделено направление развития экспертного подхода для решения задач профессионального консультирования - оценка и прогнозирование параметров выбора и принятия решений у лиц с разным составом показателей индивидуальности.

Ключевые слова: экспертная оценка, самооценка, принятие решения, профессионально важные качества, свойства личности, решимость личности.

expert evaluation professionally personality

Introduction

Problem statement. Evaluation of the level of professionalism in organizations is performed by line managers not only when preparing documents for the promotion of an employee, but also in the end of the probationary period - a candidate for the position. In some companies, in order to obtain the necessary information about the potential of employees as a reserve of the organization, employees of the personnel management service are involved. This kind of information is rightly considered one of the sources of efficiency of the organization, which together with others ensures the achievement of the company's goals. Nowadays, the most effective means of obtaining information about the employee is a business and comprehensive evaluation, which, along with traditional diagnostic methods, includes expert evaluation. The developed mathematical apparatus of conducting and processing expert evaluations only partially overcomes the gap between the possible and real areas of its use. Expansion of the scope of expert evaluation to address the range of psychological issues of personnel selection and recruting, forming project teams, finding an informal leader in the group towards the issues of professionalization of employees makes this study relevant not only from a scientific but also practical point of view.

Analysis of recent research and publications. The problem of the expert approach is deeply studied in modern science. Thus, the results of the study are reflected in the literature on the methods of expert evaluations, in reviews of their development and practical use (H. H. Azhaldov, D. S. Shmerling, V. S. Cherepanov). This was facilitated by the fact of detailed statistical and mathematical substantiation of this approach, which is also widely presented in the works of researchers (S.D. Beshelev, V.H. Hurvych, R.R. Yenakaieva, A.A. Lublinska, Z.A. Malkova, N.I. Kiseliov, N.N. Kitaiev). The expert approach has proved its worth as being used in economic, managerial, technical, as well as production types of expertise (L.H. Yevlanov, V.A. Kutuzov, E.P. Reichman, A.A. Frenkel, R.M. Khvastunov).

However, the psychological features of the expert approach, the effectiveness of its use in assessing the potential of the specialist for increasing the level of employees' professionalism are rather insufficiently studied. They are more often covered in the publications of foreign researchers, and in the total amount of work on the issue of expert methods they are not so significant. This is conditioned, on the one hand, largely by the fact that the expert approach was more developed to assess goods, equipment and their characteristics, which distracted researchers' attention from psychological issues in general and from the use of expert evaluations or expert systems in shaping professionalism.

Thus, the model of elaborating expert systems was developed in the fundamental study of R. Benfer (1991). This model assumes the acquisition, storage, presentation of knowledge, the limitations of this knowledge in diagnosing human behavior [8]. Later, G. Strube (1996) studied the structure of generalized expert knowledge, outlined the transition from the analysis of knowledge of individual experts to the analysis of their generalized opinion, which includes many psychological patterns and effects [9]. J. Goodman, R.F. Heyes, M. Koppen, M. Lehto, D. Lenat, D. Memmi, V. Moustakis, X.A. Nguyen, J. Norcini, G. Salvendy, D. Schwartz, K. Van Dam, D. Waterman made a significant contribution to the development of this issue.

Regarding the method of expert evaluation in applied psychology, there are a lot of open questions that require time and training of experts, and a specially organized evaluation procedure. Thus, among experts who use an expert approach, there is no final opinion on who should act as experts. For some these should be managers, others tend to believe that these may be employees of the firm, well acquainted with the specialist being assessed. For some others these should be specialists in the field of psychology, specially trained expert observers who see staff for the first time.

Such uncertainty has led to two approaches to the organization and expert evaluation of the firm's staff. The first approach to expert evaluation requires two conditions. First, it is a procedure in which various situations of professional activity are modelled, and, secondly, they employ specially trained experts who measure and evaluate the degree of the manifestation of parameters which are most important for the effective activity. At the same time, the experts are specialists who have professional training in the field of psychology and developed skills of diagnosing and data analysis - «external experts», who are not familiar with those assessed. The first option is most widespread abroad and is used in independent Evaluation Centers.

The second approach to expert evaluation, which has already been developed, is to study, analyze and summarize the opinions of experts about the respondents by filling out specially designed questionnaires. The role of experts is played by the leading employees of the company where the evaluation is conducted, who are well acquainted with the evaluated staff - these are «internal experts». Beside the company's psychologist, the experts may be line managers, mature specialists, the company's administration. The conducted analysis (primarily that of the psychological literature) suggests that the results of the evaluations of the two groups of experts can be compared. This will allow to conclude on the advantage of one or another approach. However, the comparison is not always relevant in many cases, as it requires significant costs and time. The exception is when the question concerns the reliability and plausibility of the final results of the evaluation - such as the characteristics of specialists' personality (for example, when assessing their suitability for a vacant position).

The most productive was the use of an expert approach in creating reference «images of the subject» of professional activity to obtain the most informative, in terms of adequacy, description of not only professional qualities but also the dynamic developing structure of specialist's personality.

Among these, first of all, it is necessary to highlight the works connected with possibilities of using the expert approach in an evaluation of professionally important qualities of a modern specialist. The professional activity of a modern specialist is a complex work that requires from a specialist not only a multifaceted consciousness, a continuous process of professionalization, a set of various structured actions, manipulations and operations, but also meeting specific requirements of the profession towards an individual. Herewith, it is necessary to take into consideration the fact that all necessary professionally important qualities of a modern specialist are formed in the process of work, «whose specifics generates the professional specifics of the individual» [3, p. 141].

The analysis of such specifics reveals not only the presence of risk factors that have a destabilizing effect on the subject of activity, but also the absence and imperfection of the current system of psychological support for the development and professional development of young specialists. Such specifics of the given problem situation is characteristic not only for any particular activity, but also many other functions and structures which are intertwined in the activity. They combine complex computer technology, modern technologies based on complexes of technological equipment, clearly determined requirements for the memory of the subject of labour, characteristics of thinking, imagination, interaction skills, etc. The selected conditions together determine the urgent social need of the professional community to transit from considering psychological specifics as part of professional activity, to the formation of a conceptual methodological approach on this basis, the implementation of which provides «consistent psychological support for professional development» [7, p. 71].

Aim and tasks

Such understanding of the relevance of this work allowed to formulate the purpose of this study - to determine and study a set of professionally important psychological qualities of the individual through expert evaluation to clarify acceptable areas of professionalization of the subject, which form the professional specifics of his personality. At the same time, we proceeded from the assumption that the application of the method of expert evaluation of professionally important personality traits will allow not only to form a source of information about their totality, but also to identify the most important regulators of professional activity. The object of research is the personality of the future specialist. The subject is specialist's professionally important personality traits, which are characteristic of a particular activity.

The research hypothesis was based on the assumption that the subject of professional activity is characterized by two groups of psychological properties at two levels of significance for the implementation of functions assigned to the employee or candidate. First, it is an invariant core that includes a set of professionally important qualities that a specialist needs regardless of the profile of his specialty and / or specialization. And, secondly, the specific properties and qualities of personality, which are conditioned by the uniqueness of specialized professional activity. It is the specifics of professional activity that determines the peculiarities of performing work tasks in specific practical situations and requires from the individual the formed knowledge, skills and abilities to perform certain actions, operations, activities in general.

In this regard, the main objectives of the study are as follows:

- to carry out the theoretical and methodological analysis of works on an issue of the expert approach and to define directions of its use in psychological studies;

- to substantiate the leading professionally important properties that ensure success in a particular profession;

- to develop a program of empirical research, to construct a set of psychodiagnostic tools, adequate to the purpose of the study;

- to carry out empirical research, to conduct statistical processing of the obtained results;

- to analyze the relationship of professionally important qualities and typological properties of speialist's personality.

The theoretical backgrounds

The theoretical and methodological basis of the study is the concept of the psychological system of decision-making and free choice of personality [5].

The initial methodological position for understanding the use of the expert approach in assessing specialist's success was the results obtained in previous studies [1], [4], [6].

In the research of the decision-maker, in the last quarter of the XX century, several areas have emerged that differ not only in the methodological basis, the original structure, but also supported by a significant number of experimental studies. The most traditional is the consideration of decision-making as an act of forming a sequence of actions leading to the goal based on the transformation of the source information in a situation of uncertainty. Without focusing on the specific features of presenting decision-making in each field, it is emphasized that decision-making is central at all levels of information processing and mental regulation in the system of purposeful human activity [5]. Research has shown that the structure of decision-making is formed by the aim, the result, the means of achieving the result, evaluation criteria and rules for choosing from a variety of alternatives [1].

Decision-making as a process occupies a central place in the structure of activity, it is included in almost all its main «components», performances, it is present at all stages of development. It is characterized by a pronounced systemic organization, it acts as a system-wide process of mental regulation of activity. Studies of this process in the structure of activity have shown that decision-making is characterized as an integral mental process. However, the most common formulation of decision-making presents it as a volitional act of a sequence of actions leading to achieving the goal based on the transformation of the source information in a state of uncertainty.

First, the objective criterion for distinguishing this process in the structure of activity and at the same time its system-forming factor is its compliance with one of the main functions of the organization - ensuring the preparation, development and making of a decision in conditions of uncertainty. This function and, consequently, the process that develops on its basis, are objectively necessary for the activity, because without them the activity is impossible. Secondly, the decision-making process has a pronounced complex nature, as it is implemented on the basis of almost all traditional, analytically selected mental processes, but irreducible, however, as shown above, to their ordinal amount, it is non-additive. Third, according to its direction, this process is not «purely» cognitive, but regulatory, as it is directly focused on the generation, organization and stabilization of activity. Fourth, in the decision-making process the phenomenon of «tripling the qualities» is most fully manifested (it is initially threefold; it is both a process and an action, and a mental state at the same time). Depending on the conditions of activity, motivation, etc. it appears with varying degrees of development, acting mainly as a process, that is, as an action, then as a state, and in extreme cases - as a special activity aimed at making a decision.

The above-mentioned suggests that both substantively and structurally, the system of activity is an amplifier of the decision-making process: with uncertainty increasing, the system of activity becomes an amplifier of content analysis and structure of decision-making parameters, which determines the similarity of decision-making processes and activity. The degree of amplifying effect can be significantly different for different conditions. In the most complete case, decision-making acts indeed as a decision-making activity; in its unfolded form, decision-making acts as a process itself, and in extreme cases - as a virtually simultaneous act, sometimes not conscious.

This interpretation allows to avoid misconception of understanding decision-making either as an activity or as a process. It can be quite adequately and fully understood and described both as an activity and as a process at the same time, ie on the basis of the principle of complementarity. One of the laws of the activity approach is the reduction of multifunctional measures in decision-making. Formed initially as an activity, decision-making gradually acquires the features of a mental process and functions as such in the mastered activity.

In fact, any component of decision-making acts as a certain limit, a specific aspect of a functional block of the system of activity. Thus, decision-making criteria are directly formed on the basis of the motivational block of activity; the information basis for decision-making is in fact the concretization of information support of activity in the situation of choice; decision-making rules are formed on the basis of ideas about the program of activities and are its integral part; methods of preparation and direct decision-making are part of the executive block of the activity.

In other words, decision-making involves almost all main components that make up the activity, but in a specific aspect - in terms of their assistance in decision-making, the psychological system of activity and its constituent structural blocks act as a functional basis for the formation of the component composition of decision-making. To ensure the integrity of decision-making, a set of relationships between components is also formed. A number of connections in the system of activity, which act as its psychological architecture, are also the basis for ensuring the integrity of decision-making. These connections form the structural basis on which the integration of components in decision-making takes place. The formation of the main constituent of activity is accompanied by the establishment of regular connections between them. Under conditions of uncertainty, these generators are transformed into decision-making components. The main mechanism of their formation in the course of mastering the activity is to provide the components that form the activity, the properties of efficiency. The leading mechanism of decision-making components' functioning at the level of already formed system is the mechanism of integration of its blocks.

Research methods

To diagnose the indicators of the selected personality properties, a set of methods was constructed [5], which included: «Personal decision-making factors» (PDmF-25) by T.V. Kornilova; «Multidimensional scales of decisiveness» (MSD) by O.I. Sannikov; expert version of D. Cairsey's «Indicator of personality's social type»; «Test-questionnaire of qualitative indicators of risk propensity» (risk-trait) by O.P. Sannikova, S.V. Bykova; «Questionnaire for studying the level of impulsivity» by V.A. Losenkov, «Decision-making questionnaire» (DMQ) by H.Yu. Eizenko.

The study was conducted in two stages. The first stage of the study employed 73 undergraduates in the psychological field of training of the State Institution «South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K.D. Ushynsky». The purpose of the first stage was to confirm the ability to use the expert version to assess the professionally important qualities of the specialist. The next step of the study was a qualitative analysis of the data, which allowed to assess the professionally important and individual psychological characteristics of the personality using an expert approach.

To process the results of the study, the SPSS statistical software package, version 13.0 for Windows, was used. In data processing, quantitative (correlation) and qualitative analysis («profiles» method and «aces» method) were used [1].

Research results

To establish the corellation between the values of the expert version of the «Indicator of personality's social type» and the properties of decision-making, a correlation analysis was performed. The results of correlation analysis are presented in the table.

The analysis of the obtained relationships shows several divergent trends in the relationships of the studied parameters. On the one hand, it is the block of positive, significant correlations of an indicator of decision-making logic, rationality, determination. The indicators of the same block are characterized by the presence of significant negative correlations between rationality (PDmF-25 methods and decisiveness (DMQ method) with the indicators of risk-trait method.

Table. Matrix of relationships of expert evaluation indicators and personality's decision making (n = 73)

Note: 1) here and further in the text the symbols «0» and «,» are omitted; 2) * - correlation at с ? 0.05 significance levels; ** - correlation at the level of с ? 0.01 significance; 3) shortening of values of the personality type indicator (according to D. Cairsey's method) - self-evaluation, expert evaluation: J, Je - judgment, advantage to plan and organize information in advance, decisive personality type; P, Pe - perception, the advantage to act without detailed prior training, more guided by the circumstances, the perceiving personality type; 4) shortenings of risk propensity indicators: EcP - emotional component, KkP - cognitive component, AcP - activity-based component, behavioral, CrCr - control and regulatory component of risk-traits, GIR - general indicator of risk-traits; 5) shortenings of indicators of the decision-making questionnaire (PDmF-25, T. V. Kornilova): Rat - rationality, Rrt - readiness for risk-taking; 6) shortenings of H. Eizenko's decision-making questionnaire indicators: Ddm - decisiveness in decision-making, Dtm - determination, Rgd - rigidity, Ips - Impulsiveness in decision-making; 7) shortening of the indicator «Impulsivity» of V. A. Losenkov's questionnaire - Imp; 8) shortenings of indicators of decisiveness scales, SDC: ImT - Impertinence, DgT - dogmatism, SpT - spontaneity.

The second block of positive correlations forms rigidity, impulsiveness, the perceiving type of personality with all indicators of a risk-trait. Risk-trait indicators form a stable formation in this block, in which its indicators that form it are closely and positively connected. A special place is occupied by the indicator of the decisive personality type, which significantly negatively correlates with emotional, cognitive and general indicators of risk-traits. Some indicators of risk propensity significantly negatively correlate with rationality (PDmF-25method) and decisiveness (DMQ method). A special place is occupied by the indicator of the decisive type of personality, which significantly negatively correlates with emotional, cognitive and general indicators of risk-traits. Some indicators of risk propensity significantly negatively correlate with rationality (DMQ method) and decisiveness (DMQ method).

Correlation analysis of self-evaluation results revealed a complex system of relationships of the studied indicators:

- the indicator of decision-making rationality (Rat) negatively correlates with the indicator of rigidity (Rgd);

- the parameter of rigidity (Rgd) showed stable negative correlations both with the indicator of readiness for risk-taking (Rrt) and with all indicators of risk propensity (except for the indicator CrCr): with the indicator EcR, KkP, AcP and GIR. The lack of significant correlation between the control and regulatory component of risk with other traits of DMQ is due to the selection of respondents - creative individuals who do not burden themselves with the control function. The data obtained in the experiment confirm the interpretation of the stability of the psychological nature of rigidity;

- an interesting relationship was found between the indicators of DMQ - impulsivity (Imp) and determination (Dtm), which requires a more detailed examination of the ratio of possible variability of volitional and temperamental manifestations of personality;

- indicators of decisivenees in decision-making (Ddm) and determination (Dtm) show positive correlation with risk indicators. It can be assumed that the individual assesses risky behavior in a decision-making situation as conscious, which is under strict control of consciousness, full responsibility of DMQ for the consequences of decisions made.

The obtained results demonstrate the trends that are characteristic of the type of expert evaluation. The very fact of significant correlations between the values of the Personality Type Indicator (expert version) and decision-making confirm the unity of emotional and rational in the individual. A risky personality with a pronounced emotional component is characterized by saturation, the strength of emotional experiences associated with the risk. The pronounced cognitive component helps the risky person to easily recognize those situations in which the risk component is presented. The behavioral component reflects the external manifestation of risk-taking - in emotions, in expression, in statements, in actions, in risky behavior. The obtained data coincide with the results of previous studies [1].

The results of qualitative analysis. To determine the peculiarities of expert evaluation of professionally important qualities, two groups of subjects were formed. The sample of respondents is quite homogeneous, because both groups consist of Master students who have chosen the same profession - a psychologist, so the values of the standard deviation are very low and tend to zero. The first group included individuals who used expert evaluation (EEv). The second group consisted of subjects who measured the manifestations of professionally important properties using self-evaluation (SEv).

Comparison of the values of risk propensity indicators in groups that differ in the type of assessment (EEv, SEv), shows the areas of values that significantly distinguish these selected groups. These are the emotional and cognitive components of risk propensity. The pronounced character of the differences confirms the previously obtained dependences [5]. The profiles of the groups distinguished according to the PDmF-25 method give the opposite picture: in the EEv group, the indicator of rationality in decision-making is much lower and the readiness for rist-taking indicator is significantly higher than in the SEv group.

The profiles of indicators of individual's decision-making according to the DMQ method coincide in the shape of the curve. The indicators of the EEv group (expert evaluation) are lower than the indicators of the second group (SEv), but with the exception of rigidity - in this group it is higher than in the second group - and is at the level of average values of other indicators. This largely explains the reason for the caution of the respondents when making decisions - checking and re-evaluating the found solution, comparing options and agreeing (convincing oneself) before the final choice.

According to the values of the Personality Type Indicator (according to the D. Cairsey's method) we can state the following: a) for the EEv group - their scores were higher in those indicators where there is an external perception of the manifestation of the indicator. This is the sensory type, the feeling type, the perceiving type. For the SEv group, the evaluations that can be imagined are more accurate. This is an intuitive type, mental type, decisive type (see Fig.).

Fig. Profiles of the values of the Indicator of personality's social type, obtained by D. Cairsey's method, in the expert group (EEv) and self-evaluation group (SEv).

Note: E - extraversion, I - introversion, S - sensory type, N - intuitive type, T - mental type, F - sensing type, J - decisive type, P - perceiving type.

Evaluation of values of the Indicator of personality's social type (according to the method of D. Cairsey) allows us to claim the following. For the EEv group - their scores were higher in those indicators where there is an external perception of the manifestation of the indicator. This is the sensory type, the feeling type, the perceiving type. For the SEv group, the evaluations that can be imagined are more accurate. This is an intuitive type, a mental type, a decisive type. Representatives of the EEv group are characterized by an attitude to the perception of information - J (decisive type). They strive to live a planned, structured, orderly life, they need to regulate life and control it. They love certainty, prefer to make a decision and carry it out. They are result-oriented. They prefer to evaluate and criticize rather than absorb new information, even (or especially) if it can change their decision. The atmosphere they create around themselves, subject to a certain order, is under constant control. Such people are characterized by: caution, the ability to make decisions without much worry. They plan their activity and act in accordance with this plan.

On the contrary, for the representatives of the SEv group, the closest type is perceiving (P) - such people strive to live flexibly and spontaneously, constantly gather information and are always ready to change their views. They want to understand life rather than control it. They prefer to remain open to new experiences, trusting in their ability to adapt to changes and enjoy changes. They are focused on the process rather than the result. The atmosphere they create around them allows them to be flexible, unpredictable, successful in adapting to circumstances and receptive to change. It is very difficult for such persons to make decisions independently and strictly adhere to them; often others do not understand what opinion they hold. Representatives of the self-evaluation group (SEv) take a wait-and-see attitude on most issues: whether it is a job to do or a day to live.

Conclusions and prospects for further research

1. New data on the ratio of the results of expert evaluation and self-evaluation of the leading professionally important personality traits of a professional are obtained.

2. Correlation and qualitative analysis of the results of empirical research revealed in the structure of professionally important qualities the specific role of such personality traits as personality type, determination, rigidity, impulsivity. They form a stable set of qualities, whose composition and level of values are specific to different types of professional activity, the level of individual's professionalism.

3. The analysis of expert evaluation showed their greater adequacy in comparison with self-evaluation under the conditions of such an organization, when experts can observe the manifestation of professionally important qualities, personality traits and personal qualities. Self-evaluation of professionally important quality is more correct provided that experts have time to think about the level that the indicator can reach.

Prospects for further research. Promising development of this area can be considered the development of expert's ability to forecast changes in professionally important qualities, assess the marginal level of their development, as well as the stability of the properties and qualities of the specialist in changing professional conditions.

References (translated and transliterated)

[01] А.С. «Тест-опросник качественных компонентов склонности к риску («риск-черты») (психодиагностическая методика)» / О.П. Саннікова, С.В. Бикова. № 24519; реєстрац. 22.05.2008.

[02] Т.В. Корнилова, «Психология риска и принятия решений»: [учеб. пособ. для вузов]. М. : Аспект Пресс, 2003.

[03] «Моделирование деятельности специалиста на основе комплексного исследования» [Текст] ; под ред. Е.Э. Смирновой. Л.: Изд-во ЛГУ, 1984.

[04] А.И. Санников, «Импульсивность и риск как факторы принятия решений личностью». Наука будущего: вопросы и гипотезы: матер. III (XLIII) Межд. науч.-практ. конф. по философским, педагогическим и психологическим наукам (Украина, г. Горловка, 20-21 марта 2014 г.). - Горловка: ФЛП Пантюх Ю.Ф., с. 90-97, 2014.

[05] А.И. Санников, «Психология жизненного выбора личности»: Монография. Одесса : Изд-во «ВМВ», 2015.

[06] О.П Санникова, А.И. Санников, С.В. Быкова, «Риск и принятие решения»: [учеб.-метод. пособ.]. Харьков : «Аспекс+», 2007.

[07] Б.А. Ясько, «Экспертный анализ профессионально важных свойств врача». Психологический журнал. Том 25. Вып. 3. С. 71-81. 2004.

[08] R.A. Benfer, «Expert Systems». US, Columbia, 1991.

[09] G. Strube, D. Janetzko & K. Markus, «Cooperative construction of expert knowledge: The case of knowledge engineering». Germany, Freiburg: Centr for Cognitive Science, 1996.

References (translated and transliterated)

[01] A.S. “Test-oprosnik kachestvennikh komponentov sklonnosti k risku («risk-cherty») (psikhodiagnosticheskaya metodika)” [Test-questionnaire of the quality components of risk propensity (psychodiagnostic methods)] O.P. Sannikova, S.V. Bykova. № 24519; reg. 22.05.2008.

[02] T.V. Kornilova, «Psikhologiya riska i priniatiya reshenii» [Psychology of rist and decision-making]: teaching manual. M.: Aspekt Press, 2003.

[03] «Modelirovaniye deyatelnosti spetsialista na osnove kompleksnogo issledovaniya” [Modelling specialist's activity on the basis of complex study]; Ye. E. Smirnova (Eds.) L. : Izd-vo LGU, 1984.

[04] A.I. Sannikov, «Impulsivnost i risk kak factory priniatiya reshenii lichnostiu» [Impulsivity and risk as factors of decision-making]. Nauka budushchego: voprosy i gipotezy: materiali Mezhd. nauch.-prakt. konf. po filosofskim, pedagogicheskim i psikhologicheskim naukam (Ukraine, Gorlovka, March 20-21, 2014). Gorlovka : FLP Pantiukh Yu. F., s. 90-97, 2014.

[05] A.I. Sannikov, «Psikhologiya zhiznennogo vibora lichnosti» [Psychology of personality's life choice] : monograph. Odessa : Izd-vo «BMB», 2015.

[06] O.P. Sannikova, A.I. Sannikov, S.V. Bykova, «Risk i priniatiye reshenii» [Risk and decision-making] : teaching manual. Kharkiv : «Aspeks+», 2007.

[07] B.A. Yasko, «Ekspertnyi analiz professionalno vazhnykh svoistv vracha» [Expert analysis of professionally important qualities of a doctor]. Psikhologisheskii zhurnal, Vol. 25, Iss. 3, s. 71-81, 2004.

[08] R.A. Benfer, «Expert Systems». US, Columbia, 1991.

[09] G. Strube, D. Janetzko & K. Markus, «Cooperative construction of expert knowledge: The case of knowledge engineering». Germany, Freiburg : Centr for Cognitive Science, 1996.

Размещено на Allbest.ru