# The ATHENA Competency Framework: An Evaluation of Its Validity According to Instructional Designers and Human Resource Development Professionals

## TL;DR

This paper evaluates how well instructional designers and HRD professionals understand the ATHENA competency framework's 60 facets.

## Contribution

The study provides empirical validation of the ATHENA framework's clarity and usability by practitioners in competency management.

## Key findings

- Instructional designers and HRD professionals generally found the ATHENA facets semantically clear and usable.
- The study supports the compatibility between ATHENA's multidimensional facets and practitioners' conceptions of competencies.
- Results suggest the framework is comprehensible for professionals involved in learning and workforce development.

## Abstract

The ATHENA (Advanced Tool for Holistic Evaluation and Nurturing of Abilities) competency framework proposes a multidimensional approach to human performance structured around five interdependent dimensions (cognition, conation, knowledge, emotion, and sensori-motion), operationalized through 60 fine-grained facets. Although ATHENA is grounded in contemporary psychological theory and supported conceptually by multivariate research in intelligence, creativity, and skill acquisition, empirical evidence regarding the clarity and practical comprehensibility of its facets remains limited. This study investigates the extent to which instructional designers and human resource development (HRD) professionals—two groups who routinely operationalize competencies for learning, assessment, and workforce development—understand and evaluate the semantic clarity and usability of the 60 facets. Seventy-five practitioners completed a structured evaluation of the ATHENA framework facets, which are designed to be used in a hybrid intelligence system for competency management. This article presents the theoretical background, methodological design, and results concerning users’ comprehension of the framework’s components. The findings support, in general, the compatibility of ATHENA’s facets and practitioners’ conceptions.