เอกสารการประชุมวิชาการและเสนอผลงานวิจัย มหาวิทยาลัยทักษิณ ครั้งที่ 19 2552 - page 517

„µ¦ž¦³»¤ª·µ„µ¦Â¨³Áœ°Ÿ¨Šµœª·‹´¥ ¤®µª·š¥µ¨´¥š´„¬·– ‡¦´ÊŠš¸É 19 ž¦³‹Îµže 2552
2
Abstract
The purpose of research was to develop indicators and criteria for evaluating work performance
competency of support officials at Thaksin University. Two types of competency were developed : main
competency and positional competency, which involved two stages of development. The first stage was to identify
main and positional competency indicators ,Which consisted of Knowledge , Skill , Personality. A panel of expert
provided the 4 level rubric scale criteria form the Delphi technique. The researcher selected only the indicators
and criteria which had the median scores of 3.50 and over and with a medium and high congruency level assessed
by the experts. The second stage involved a feasibility study in utilizing the developed indicators and criteria for
evaluating the work performance competency of support officials. The indicators and criteria selected were those
indicated by the experts to have a high feasibility (50% and over).
The research results revel the indicators and criteria which could be used for the evaluation to consist
of 6 main indicators. Indicators and criteria for evaluating officials’ competency in secretarial and general
administration consist of 12 indicators. Indicators and criteria for evaluating officials’ competency in material
handling consist of 10 indicators. Indicators and criteria for evaluating officials in finance and accounting consist
of 8 indicators. Indicators and criteria for evaluating officials’ competency in computer science consist of 9
indicators. Indicators and criteria for evaluating officials’ competency in audio-visual consist of 7 indicators.
Indicators and criteria for evaluating officials’ competency in policy and plan analysis consist of 12 indicators.
Indicators and criteria for evaluating officials’ competency in education consist of 11 indicators.
Key Words : competency, support officials, indicators and criteria for evaluating work performance competency
‡ÎµœÎµ
š¦´¡¥µ„¦¤œ»¬¥rÁž}œš¦´¡¥µ„¦š¸É¤¸‡»–‡nµ ¤¸‡ªµ¤‡·— ¨³¤¸«´„¥£µ¡Äœ˜´ªÁ°Š ˜n¨³‡œ¤¸‡ªµ¤Â˜„˜nµŠ„´œš´ÊŠ
Ĝ—oµœ‡ªµ¤¦¼o š´ „¬³ ¨³Á‹˜‡˜· ¤¸‡ªµ¤µ¤µ¦™Äœ„µ¦ž’·´ ˜·Šµœ®¦º °Ÿ¨š¸Éŗo‹µ„„µ¦ž’· ´˜·Šµœš¸É˜„˜nµŠ„´œ š´ÊŠ°Š
ž¦³Á—Èœœ¸Ê ‹¹Š˜o°ŠœÎµ¤µ¡·‹µ¦–µ¦nª¤„´œ Á¡¦µ³Ÿ¨‹µ„„µ¦ž’· ´˜·Šµœ‹³³šo°œ«´„¥£µ¡ °Š¤œ»¬¥r¨³„¦³ªœ„µ¦
šÎ µŠµœ ™oµµ¤µ¦™ª· Á‡¦µ³®rŗoªn µ ¤œ»¬¥r ¤¸«´„¥£µ¡Á¡¸¥ŠÄ— Ÿ¨ž’·´ ˜·ŠµœÁž}œÁn œÅ¦Â¨oª „È µ¤µ¦™š¸É‹³—Î µÁœ·œŠµœ
¡´ •œµ®¦º°—¹ Š«´„¥£µ¡ °Š¤œ»¬¥r °°„¤µÄoÄ®o Á„·—ž¦³Ã¥œr Ĝ„µ¦ž’·´˜·Šµœ˜µ¤Ážjµ®¤µ¥ °Š°Š‡r„¦ š¦´ ¡¥µ„¦
¤œ» ¬¥r µ¤µ¦™¡´•œµÄ®o ¤¸«´„¥£µ¡ ¨³¤¸ž¦³·š›·£µ¡Á¡·É¤ ¹ÊœÅ—o ™oµ®µ„Å—o¦´„µ¦ f„°¦¤ Ä®o „µ¦«¹ „¬µÂ¨³¤¸„µ¦
¡´ •œµÄ®o™¼„˜o°Š°¥nµŠÁž}œ¦³ (œŠœ» ªŠ¬r »ª¦¦–.2543 : 4-5) ™µœž¦³„°„µ¦Â˜n¨³Â®nŠ‹¹ ŠÅ—oÄ®o‡ªµ¤Îµ‡´„´
š¦´¡¥µ„¦¤œ»¬¥r£µ¥Äœ°Š‡r„¦ °Š˜œ¤µ„ ¹Êœ ×¥¡¥µ¥µ¤¦¦®µ»‡‡¨š¸É¤¸‡ªµ¤¦¼o ‡ªµ¤µ¤µ¦™ ¤µ¦nª¤šÎµŠµœ ¦¦®µ
ª·›¸„µ¦š¸É‹³‡´—Á¨º°„ ª·›¸ „µ¦š¸É‹³¡´ •œµ»‡¨µ„¦Ä®ošÎµŠµœ°¥nµŠ¤¸ž¦³· š›·£µ¡‡»o¤‡nµ„´ÁŠ·œ‡nµ‹oµŠÂ¨³ª´ —·„µ¦˜nµŠ Ç š¸É
‹³˜o°Š¨Šš» œ‹nµ¥Á¡ºÉ°Ä®o ŗo¤µ ¨³¦´„¬µÅªoÁ¡ºÉ°Ä®o šÎµŠµœ„´ °Š‡r„¦˜n°ÅžÄœª´œ oµŠ®œoµ (°» „§¬–r „µ‹œÁ„˜» . 2544 :
19) œª‡· —„µ¦¦·®µ¦š¦´¡¥µ„¦» ‡‡¨ °Š¦³¦µ„µ¦„ÈÁnœ„´œ˜o°Š¤¸„µ¦ž¦´Áž¨¸É¥œª·›¸ „µ¦šÎµŠµœÄ®oÁ®¤µ³¤„´