The ATHENA Competency Framework: An Evaluation of its Validity according to Instructional Designers and Human Resource Development Professionals

Introduction
The ATHENA competency framework offers a multidimensional and agentic model of human performance, integrating cognitive, conative, emotional, knowledge-based, and sensorimotor resources into 60 fine-grained facets. While the framework is conceptually grounded in contemporary psychological theory, its applied usability depends on whether professionals who rely on competency frameworks can clearly understand and differentiate its components. This study provides the first empirical assessment of the semantic clarity and perceived dimensional coherence of ATHENA’s 60 facets among instructional designers and human resource development (HRD) professionals.

Methods
Seventy-five practitioners (46 instructional designers; 29 HRD professionals) evaluated the clarity, appropriateness, and expected meaning of each facet using standardized definitions. Participants also assigned each facet to one of ATHENA’s five theoretical dimensions. Ratings were collected via an online questionnaire and analyzed descriptively.

Results
Overall, practitioners judged the facet definitions as clear and meaningful, with high average ratings across the 60 facets and strong alignment with participants’ expectations. Only two facets—heuristics and functional synesthesia—showed consistently lower alignment with preconceived interpretations. Dimensional assignment matched the theoretical structure for most facets; however, 14 facets (23%) were systematically reassigned by participants, often shifted toward the cognitive domain. This suggests that while definitions were understood, the psychological rationale for some facets’ dimensional placement was not intuitively perceived.

Conclusions
The results support the semantic robustness of ATHENA’s facets and their overall suitability for instructional and HRD applications. The misalignment of several facets’ dimensional placement highlights the need for refined labels, clearer theoretical justification, or revised explanatory materials. These findings represent a critical validation step for ATHENA before larger-scale psychometric work and provide guidance for strengthening its integration within hybrid intelligence talent development systems.