EPB

Scoring & Grading Methodology - Performance Statements

Performance Level Scoring Method

To effectively grade (or "score") statements, you should utilize a line-by-line scoring method rather than evaluating an entire package at once. This approach prevents the "halo and horn effects"—where a board member's overall score is biased by a single outstanding or terrible statement—and ensures a fair, objective, and consistent evaluation.

The Three-Step Core Grading Process

This process breaks down the mechanics of the performance statement:

Step 1: Identify the components.

Read the statement from left to right and break it down into its core elements, which are typically the Action, Impact, and Result (AIR).
Step 2: Evaluate and mark each component.

As you read, underline the parts of the statement that you find particularly strong, and circle the parts that are ambiguous, unclear, or weak. Decide which performance level best describes each individual component. (For example: a statement might have a "Management" level action but only a "Membership" level result).
Step 3: Assign an overall score.

After analyzing the individual parts, determine the overall level of the accomplishment and write the corresponding point value in the right-hand margin.

Performance Levels & Numerical Scores

Score	Performance Level	Description & Examples
5	Leadership	Characterizes strategic involvement, such as leading vast populations, directing large programs, or assuming responsibility over major operations.
4	Management	Characterizes operational efforts, such as leading multiple teams, directing large-scale projects, or completing significant educational milestones like an undergraduate degree.
3	Supervisory	Characterizes tactical or operational oversight, such as leading a small group or program, or completing a Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) degree.
2	Membership	Characterizes basic tactical-level tasks, such as assisting, supporting, participating, or fulfilling basic daily duties.
1	Fluff	Characterizes ambiguous language, vague praise, or non-performance that holds no tangible value because the individual's actual action cannot be confirmed.

The "Two-Levels Concept"

Because grading is not a perfect science and relies somewhat on interpretation, you can use the Two-Levels Concept if you get stuck:

When evaluating a performance statement, narrow the accomplishment down to two adjacent performance levels (e.g., deciding if a $2 million savings is a Management or Leadership level result).
By finding the correct range first, you can more easily pinpoint the exact score.

Benefit: This concept ensures that different board members scoring the same package will almost always grade within one level of each other.

The Below method expands on the above by adding a statistical framework

The 6 C's Performance Statement Scoring Method

To grade a statements using the 6 C's, you utilize the "Statistical Scoresheet," which calculates a final score based on two attributes: the organizational scope of the action and the level of statistical analysis used.

The Grading Formula

You can determine the grade of a statement using the following formula:

F (x, y) = 1.25 x + y

Step-by-Step Variables Application

1. Determine the "y" value (The 6 C's Statistical Reporting Level)

Assign a point value from 1 to 6 based on how complex and analytical the bullet's data is:

Level 1 (Characteristic) — 1 point: Raw, uncomputed data (e.g., "$14M" or "4-mbr team").
Level 2 (Comparative) — 2 points: Data expressed as a reference to other data (e.g., "#2/30 NCOs").
Level 3 (Compiled) — 3 points: Computations that yield new data, like averages or percentages.
Level 4 (Combined) — 4 points: Expressing two or more compiled statistics as a comparison.
Level 5 (Calling the Future) — 5 points: Using trend analysis to forecast upcoming meaningful data.
Level 6 (Causal) — 6 points: Proving a developed mechanism or procedure guarantees a specific metric.

2. Determine the "x" value (Organizational Scope)

Assign a number that represents how many levels above or below the individual the action impacted. This value can range from -1 to theoretically up to 10.

Example: If a flight chief's performance statement impacts the Group level (which is two echelons above the flight), their "x" value is 2.

3. Calculate and Evaluate the Final Score

Once you plug your variables into the formula, use the resulting number to evaluate how competitive the statement is:

Minimum Worthy Impact: Writers should aim to generate a minimum score of 5 for a performance statement to be considered competitive.
The Green Zone: Statements that score 6.5 or higher land in the highly competitive "green zone" and have a much greater potential of catching an evaluation board's attention.

*Here is the Statistical Scoresheet methodology mapped out in grid.

This grid calculates the final score of a performance statement using the formula F(x,y) = 1.25x + y, where "x" is the Organizational Scope (rows) and "y" is the Statistical Reporting Level (columns).

Org Levels Influenced (x)	Characteristic (1)	Comparative (2)	Compiled (3)	Combined (4)	Calling the Future (5)	Causal (6)
-1 or lower	-0.25	0.75	1.75	2.75	3.75	4.75
0	1	2	3	4	5	6
1	2.25	3.25	4.25	5.25	6.25	7.25
2	3.5	4.5	5.5	6.5	7.5	8.5
3	4.75	5.75	6.75	7.75	8.75	9.75
4	6	7	8	9	10	11
5+	7.25	8.25	9.25	10.25	11.25	12.25

How to read the results:

Scores under 5: Generally lack the impact to be highly competitive.
Scores of 5 to 6.4: Represent the minimum score needed to have a worthy impact.
Scores of 6.5 and above: These land in the highly competitive "green zone" (which I have bolded in the table above) and have the greatest potential to be noticed by evaluation boards.