Workplace-Based Competency Assessment

Assessing competency in context, against a level-based framework.

Who this course is for

This course is for people who lead assessment for credentials that claim to show competency at work:

• L&D and corporate academy leads.
• Professional bodies and sector associations.
• Programme and micro-credential leads.
• ICoBC Lead Reviewers.

At ICSF level L4 "Assure" you lead assessment strategy for significant programmes, design workplace-based competency assessment and manage integrity risks, including generative AI. This course sits at the "Ability" stage. You practise the capability on realistic tasks in a controlled setting, using the knowledge you already have.

You need to have completed ICB-P02 Assessment Design for Credentials: Valid, Reliable, Fair. The course assumes you know the basics of validity, reliability, fairness and rubric design.

Learning outcomes

After this course you can:

1. Design competency assessment in the workplace against a level-based framework such as SFIA.
2. Specify portfolio evidence, attestation and professional discussion.
3. Train and calibrate workplace assessors and attesters.
4. Set validity periods and renewal rules for competency credentials.

Outcomes, modules and assessment

Workload and format

The course is a blended cohort programme with 10 hours of notional learning. This file covers the self-paced part: reading, worked examples, practice activities and quizzes. Live or workshop elements appear as facilitator notes inside each module.

How it is assessed

You complete a knowledge check with 10 questions. Then you write one competency assessment scheme for one role or skill at one level. A trained person assesses the scheme with the rubric in the section "Assessment and badge". The file does not grade your scheme.

Badge

Successful completion leads to the badge "Workplace-Based Competency Assessment (Ability, L4)", alignment code ICSF-ASMT-L4-A. The badge evidence is your scheme document.

The badge shows that you practised designing a competency assessment scheme to the standard of the rubric. It does not prove that you can do the job in any workplace.

Two worked-example contexts

Examples run in two settings:

• A corporate academy or HR department, for example the academy of a logistics company (illustrative).
• A university, college or training provider, for example a college that places learners in employers (illustrative).

All numbers in examples are illustrative.

A note on frameworks and licences

The course uses SFIA as an example of a level-based framework. SFIA 9 is established. SFIA 10 is in consultation, and the SFIA Foundation targets release around Q4 2027. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. Check the SFIA licence terms before you reproduce descriptors in your own material. This course does not reproduce SFIA descriptors.

Ability and competency

From knowledge to ability to competency

Three terms need clear use in this course.

• Knowledge is what a person knows and understands. You can test it with questions.
• Ability is what a person can do on a realistic task in a controlled setting, such as a case, simulation, sandbox or project. You can observe it, but the setting is prepared.
• Competency is the sustained capability to perform to a defined level in real work, with real constraints, real people and real consequences.

A workplace-based competency assessment looks at competency. It gathers evidence from real work, so it needs rules for what counts, who vouches for it and how long it stays valid.

Level-based frameworks

A level-based framework describes a skill at several levels. Each level describes the autonomy, influence, complexity and knowledge expected. SFIA is a well-known example. It describes professional skills in the digital field across seven levels of responsibility.

For your assessment design, a level-based framework gives you three things:

1. A skill with a stable name and definition.
2. A level that says how much responsibility the person carries.
3. A shared language that employers, providers and assessors can use.

Your first design decision is the target: one role or skill at one level. Fix this before anything else. A scheme that tries to assess "digital skills" in general cannot be assessed with rigour.

Writing performance statements

A framework descriptor is general. Your scheme turns it into performance statements: short, observable statements of what a competent person does in your context.

A good performance statement:

• starts with an active verb;
• names the work product or situation;
• states the standard or constraint;
• can be evidenced from real work.

Example for a data analyst at a mid level: "Produces a monthly report from the company data warehouse that the finance team uses without correction, and documents the data sources and checks."

Avoid statements that cannot be seen in work, such as "understands data quality". Move those to knowledge checks.

Do not copy framework descriptors word for word into your scheme unless the licence allows it. Link to the framework and write your own performance statements.

Why the workplace

The workplace gives you what a simulation cannot: real stakeholders, incomplete information, time pressure and consequences. It also gives you problems: work varies from person to person, supervisors differ, and evidence is messy. A good scheme accepts the variation and controls it with clear rules.

Worked example: Targeting a skill at one level

Corporate academy. The academy of a logistics company (illustrative) wants a credential for warehouse planning analysts. The lead picks one skill from the framework, data analysis, and one level, the level where the analyst works with limited supervision and advises others. She writes four performance statements. One reads: "Produces the weekly stock-variance analysis, explains outliers to the warehouse manager and records the corrective action agreed."

College. A college (illustrative) places second-year software learners with employers for 12 weeks. The programme lead chooses one skill, programming, at the entry practitioner level. One performance statement reads: "Delivers a code change through the team's review process and responds to review comments within the agreed time."

In both cases the target is narrow, the statements are observable and the work exists anyway.

Practice activity: Define your target

Choose a role or skill and one level in a framework you know. Write the following in your notes:

1. The role or skill, and the framework and level.
2. Four to six performance statements, each with an active verb, a work product or situation and a standard.
3. One statement you removed because it cannot be seen in work, and where you will assess it instead.

Keep this text. It becomes the first section of your scheme document.

Quiz: Ability and competency

Evidence from work

What counts as evidence

Evidence from work is any record that shows a person performed a task to a standard. It comes in three forms:

• Product: what the person made or changed, such as a report, a code change, a plan or a recording.
• Testimony: what others say about the performance, such as a supervisor statement or a customer message.
• Discussion: what the person says when asked to explain and defend their work.

No single form is enough. A product may have been made by someone else. Testimony may be generous. A discussion may be rehearsed. When the three agree, the claim is strong.

Specifying a portfolio

A portfolio is a structured collection of evidence from work. In your scheme, specify the portfolio rules in advance so that every candidate knows what to submit and every assessor knows what to check.

A portfolio specification states:

1. Coverage: which performance statements must be evidenced, and how many pieces of evidence each needs.
2. Evidence types: which products are accepted, and which are not.
3. Recency: how old evidence may be. Work from five years ago says little about current competency.
4. Variety: whether evidence must come from more than one task, project or time point.
5. Context record: what the candidate says about their role, the task, the constraints and what they personally did.
6. Confidentiality: how to handle client or employer data, for example by redaction or by assessor visit.
7. Format and size: file types, length and storage.

Keep the portfolio proportionate. A large portfolio does not mean higher rigour. A small, well-specified portfolio with clear coverage is easier to assess consistently.

Quality criteria for evidence

Assessors judge each piece of evidence against four criteria. They come from assessment practice and fit workplace evidence well:

• Valid: it relates to the performance statement.
• Authentic: it is the candidate's own work.
• Current: it reflects present competency.
• Sufficient: there is enough of it to show consistent performance, not a one-off.

Write these into your scheme as the test for every item.

Work produced with agents

Many workplaces now use AI agents and generative tools to produce drafts, code, analyses and plans. Work produced with agents can be valid evidence. The question is what the candidate did. Two concepts help:

• Authorship: who made the decisions that shaped the product, and which parts came from the tool.
• Supervision: how the candidate directed, checked, corrected and took responsibility for the agent's output.

Your scheme should ask for a short agent-use declaration with each piece of evidence: which tools were used, for what, what the candidate wrote or decided, and what checks were done. Then the discussion tests it. A candidate who supervised well can explain why they accepted, changed or rejected the output. A candidate who only pasted output usually cannot.

Decide in advance which skills are assessed on unaided work and which on supervised agent work. For some roles, supervising agents is itself part of the skill, and the performance statements should say so.

Worked example: A portfolio specification with agent declaration

Corporate academy. The logistics academy (illustrative) requires analysts to submit three pieces of evidence per performance statement group: two work products from different months, and one supervisor statement. Each product carries a one-page context record and an agent-use declaration. One analyst used a generative tool to draft a variance summary. Her declaration states that she wrote the analysis plan, ran the queries herself, used the tool to draft text, then checked every figure against the source and rewrote two paragraphs. The assessor notes the declaration and plans discussion questions about those checks.

College. The college (illustrative) asks learners to submit code changes from the employer repository, with the review thread attached. The declaration asks which parts were produced with a coding assistant. One learner reports that the assistant suggested a test structure, which he rejected because it duplicated an existing helper. The review thread supports this. The assessor sees authorship and supervision in the evidence.

Practice activity: Specify the portfolio

Using the target from the previous module, write a portfolio specification of no more than one page. Include:

1. Coverage per performance statement, and the number of evidence items.
2. Accepted evidence types and one type you exclude, with a reason.
3. Recency and variety rules.
4. A confidentiality rule.
5. An agent-use declaration with at least four questions the candidate must answer.

Check each rule against the four quality criteria: valid, authentic, current, sufficient.

Quiz: Evidence from work

Attestation

What attestation is

Attestation is a formal statement by a third party that the candidate performed the work and reached a standard. The attester is usually a line manager, a senior colleague, a client or a placement supervisor. Attestation supplies the testimony corner of the evidence triangle.

An attestation is more than a reference letter. A reference says "she is a good colleague". An attestation says "she led the stock-variance analysis in March and April, worked without supervision, and the output met our reporting standard".

Who can attest

Not everyone can attest to everything. Set attester eligibility rules:

• The attester has directly observed or reviewed the work.
• The attester has enough competency in the skill to judge it. At least the target level is a common rule, or a defined role such as a registered professional.
• The attester is not in a conflict of interest, for example a close family member, a business partner or someone whose own result depends on the candidate.
• The attester accepts responsibility for the statement.

Decide what happens when no suitable attester exists, for example for self-employed candidates. Options include a client attester, a peer attester from a professional body, or an extra professional discussion.

Structured attestation

Free-form attestation is hard to compare. Use a structured attestation form. It asks the attester to:

1. Identify themselves, their role and their relationship to the candidate.
2. Say how long and in what setting they observed the candidate.
3. For each performance statement, state whether they observed it, with a dated example.
4. Rate the performance against the level descriptors, using a defined scale with anchors.
5. State any limits, for example "I did not observe the planning stage".
6. Declare any conflict of interest.
7. Sign or confirm electronically.

Anchors on the scale matter. "Meets the standard" needs an explanation of what meeting the standard looks like.

Risks and safeguards

Attestation has known weaknesses:

• Leniency: attesters want to help the candidate.
• Halo effect: a good impression in one area colours all ratings.
• Pressure: employees may feel unable to refuse.
• Fraud: forged or invented statements.

Safeguards include: requiring specific, dated examples; verifying the attester's identity and role; sampling attestations for follow-up contact; asking the attester to confirm the statement through a separate channel; and training attesters (covered in the module Assessor calibration). Make clear to attesters that false statements may lead to withdrawal of the credential.

Attestation of agent-supervised work needs one more question: did the attester see the candidate directing and checking the agent, or only the final product? The form should ask this directly.

Worked example: A structured attestation

Corporate academy. The logistics academy (illustrative) asks line managers to attest. A manager must have supervised the analyst for at least three months and hold the target level or above. The form asks for two dated examples per performance statement. One manager writes: "On 12 March the analyst found a pattern of late goods-in entries, traced it to one dock team and proposed a fix that I approved." The reviewer notes the specificity and moves on. A second form says only "excellent worker". The reviewer returns it with a request for examples.

College. The college (illustrative) asks workplace supervisors to attest, and adds a college tutor visit. The supervisor form includes a question: "Did you see the learner check or correct output from any AI tool? Give an example." A supervisor describes how the learner rejected a suggested query because it ignored a date filter. The tutor, at a visit, finds the same story in the learner's notes.

Practice activity: Design the attestation

Write the attestation rules for your target:

1. Attester eligibility, with at least one conflict-of-interest rule.
2. A fall-back route when no suitable attester exists.
3. A structured form with at least six items, including a scale with anchors for each rating point.
4. Two safeguards against leniency or fraud, and how you will apply them.

Then test your form by completing it for a fictional candidate. Note any item that invites vague answers and rewrite it.

Quiz: Attestation

Professional discussion

What a professional discussion is

A professional discussion is a structured conversation between an assessor and a candidate about the candidate's real work. It is the discussion corner of the evidence triangle. The assessor asks questions that make the candidate explain decisions, show reasoning and reflect on what they did. It is not an interview about the candidate's character, and it is not a quiz.

The discussion has three jobs:

1. Authenticate: confirm the candidate did the work.
2. Deepen: reach competencies that are hard to see in products, such as judgement, risk handling and working with people.
3. Fill gaps: explore performance statements where the portfolio is thin.

Designing the protocol

A written protocol makes discussions comparable. Specify:

• Purpose and scope: which performance statements the discussion covers.
• Length: for example 45 to 60 minutes (illustrative), with a fixed range.
• Mode: in person, by video, recorded or not. State how you handle consent and records.
• Question bank: a set of core questions asked of everyone, plus prompts for follow-up.
• Structure: opening, portfolio walk-through, scenario or "what if" questions, close.
• Timing and adjustments: reasonable adjustments for candidates with additional needs, and language support where the language of work is not the candidate's first language.
• Record: notes or recording kept against a template.
• Decision rules: how the assessor turns the discussion into judgements, using the same rubric as for the portfolio.

Good questions

Good questions are open, specific to the candidate's evidence and tied to a performance statement. Useful types:

• Decision: "At this point in the project you chose option B. What were the alternatives and why did you reject them?"
• Counterfactual: "What would you have done if the data had arrived a week late?"
• Failure: "Tell me about something that went wrong and what you changed."
• Transfer: "How would you handle this in a different setting?"
• Authenticity probe: "Walk me through how you produced this chart, step by step."

Avoid leading questions, double questions and questions that can be answered with yes or no.

Discussion and agent-supervised work

When evidence was produced with agents, the discussion is the strongest test of supervision. Useful probes:

• "Which parts did the tool draft and which parts did you write?"
• "What did you check, and how? Show me one example where the output was wrong."
• "What would you do if the tool gave a plausible but incorrect answer here?"
• "What did you decide not to delegate to the tool, and why?"
• "Reproduce this step now, without the tool, at a basic level."

The last probe has limits. Use it only if the performance statements require unaided capability. If supervising agents is the skill, test the supervision.

A candidate who supervised well answers with detail, names specific checks and shows judgement. A candidate who did not supervise gives general answers, cannot explain choices or contradicts the portfolio.

Fairness and records

Keep the discussion fair. Use the same core questions for every candidate. Train assessors to avoid bias from accent, appearance or style. Allow thinking time. Keep a record in a form that allows moderation and appeal. Tell candidates in advance what the discussion covers and how the result is used.

Worked example: A discussion protocol

Corporate academy. The logistics academy (illustrative) runs a 50-minute video discussion. The assessor opens with five minutes on context, then asks the candidate to walk through one portfolio item, then asks three scenario questions from the bank, then two agent-use probes, then closes. Notes go on a template with one line per performance statement. When a candidate describes a variance analysis in vague terms, the assessor asks for the first query she ran and why. The detail she gives, including a data-quality filter she added, supports authorship.

College. The college (illustrative) holds discussions on the employer site where possible, with the workplace supervisor not present. The tutor-assessor asks a learner about a code change that used an assistant. The learner explains the design, names a bug in the suggested code that he found through a failing test and explains how he fixed it. The tutor records the evidence against two performance statements and cross-checks with the review thread.

Practice activity: Write the discussion protocol

Write a protocol of no more than two pages for your target:

1. Purpose, scope, length and mode.
2. A question bank with at least eight questions, covering decision, counterfactual, failure and authenticity types, plus at least two agent-use probes.
3. A structure with timings.
4. Rules for adjustments and for records.
5. Decision rules: how the discussion links to the rubric.

Then rewrite any question that is leading, double or closed.

Quiz: Professional discussion

Assessor calibration

Why calibrate

Two assessors can look at the same evidence and reach different decisions. In workplace-based assessment the risk is high: evidence varies, assessors work in different organisations and many are not professional assessors. Calibration reduces the gap. It means bringing assessors to a shared understanding of the standard.

Calibration covers workplace assessors, who judge candidates, and attesters, who give testimony. Both need preparation, but at different depth.

Assessor roles

Define roles clearly in the scheme:

• Attester: gives structured testimony. Light training.
• Workplace assessor: reviews portfolio evidence and leads discussions. Full training and authorisation.
• Internal quality assurer (moderator): samples decisions, checks consistency, supports assessors.
• Lead assessor or panel chair: resolves disputes and owns the standard.

Set eligibility for each role: relevant competency at or above the target level, assessment training, and independence from the candidate.

Training content

A workable training programme covers:

1. The framework, the target skill and level, and the performance statements.
2. The rubric and what each rating point looks like.
3. The evidence rules: validity, authenticity, currency, sufficiency.
4. Conducting the discussion: questioning, listening, recording.
5. Handling bias, conflicts of interest and fairness.
6. Handling work produced with agents: reading declarations, probing supervision.
7. Confidentiality, data protection and record keeping.
8. Appeals and escalation.

Use practice, not only briefing. Assessors work through anonymised cases, make decisions and compare them.

Calibration activities

Calibration is a cycle, not a one-time event:

• Benchmarking: assessors judge the same set of sample portfolios and discuss differences. Samples include clear passes, clear fails and borderline cases.
• Exemplars: a library of annotated evidence showing each rating point.
• Double marking: for a sample of live candidates, a second assessor judges independently.
• Moderation meetings: regular sessions to discuss disputed cases and update guidance.
• Agreement checks: track how often assessors agree, and review cases where they differ. Set an agreement target in your scheme, for example a share of decisions within one rating point (illustrative).
• Authorisation and re-authorisation: assessors are authorised after calibration and re-checked at fixed intervals.

When agreement is low, find the cause: unclear rubric, weak anchors, insufficient training or an assessor who needs support. Fix the cause, not only the individual.

Calibrating for agent-supervised evidence

Add calibration cases where the evidence involves agents. Include one with strong supervision, one with weak supervision and one with an unclear declaration. Ask assessors to decide and to say what extra evidence they would request. Keep these cases current, as tools and practices change.

Worked example: A calibration session

Corporate academy. The logistics academy (illustrative) trains eight line managers as attesters and four senior analysts as assessors. In a half-day session the assessors rate three anonymised portfolios independently, then compare. Two assessors differ on a borderline case: one accepted a single supervisor statement as sufficient, the other did not. The group agrees on a rule: at least two dated examples per performance statement group. The rule goes into the guidance, and the exemplar library gains the case.

College. The college (illustrative) draws assessors from tutors and placement supervisors. Each term, tutors double-mark a sample of portfolios. In one round, agreement on the rating for "reviews own code" falls. The moderator finds that supervisors read "reviews own code" differently when a coding assistant is used. The team adds an anchor example and a calibration case about checking assistant output.

Practice activity: Plan assessor training and calibration

Write an assessor and attester plan for your target, no more than two pages:

1. Roles and eligibility rules.
2. Training outline with at least six topics and the method for each.
3. A calibration cycle: benchmarking, exemplars, double marking, moderation, with a frequency for each.
4. An agreement measure and a target, and what you will do when it is missed.
5. One calibration case on agent-supervised evidence, described in four lines.

Quiz: Assessor calibration

Renewal

Why competency credentials expire

Competency changes. Skills fade without use, tools and standards move, and roles change. A credential that never expires keeps saying "competent" about a person whose work may have changed. Validity periods and renewal rules keep the claim honest.

A credential is not valid "for ever" and not valid "for a fixed time for everyone". The right period depends on the field.

Setting the validity period

Consider these factors:

• Pace of change in the field, tools and regulation.
• Risk if a holder is no longer competent, for example safety, finance or personal data.
• Level: higher levels often involve judgement that changes more slowly, but the consequences of error may be larger.
• Frequency of practice: roles that use the skill daily keep it current more easily.
• Burden on holders and employers.
• Expectations of regulators, professional bodies and employers where relevant.

Pick a period that you can justify in writing, for example two, three or five years (illustrative). Record the rationale in the scheme. Avoid copying a period from another scheme without reason.

Renewal routes

Offer one or more routes and state the evidence for each:

• Re-assessment: a full or reduced repeat of the original process.
• Evidence of continued practice: dated work evidence from the validity period, with attestation, assessed against current performance statements.
• Continuing development: documented learning relevant to changes in the skill, with a limit on how far this alone can renew.
• Bridging assessment: a focused check on what has changed, for holders who meet recency but not currency.

A common design uses continued practice plus a short discussion as the default route, and full re-assessment when the holder has not practised or the standard has changed substantially.

Lapse, suspension and withdrawal

Define what happens in each case:

• Expiry: the credential ends on the stated date. Say if there is a grace period and what the holder may claim during it.
• Lapse and reinstatement: rules for people who return after a gap. Longer gaps require fuller assessment.
• Suspension: temporary, pending investigation, for example when concerns arise about integrity.
• Withdrawal: permanent removal, for example for false evidence or serious misconduct.
• Appeal: how holders challenge a decision.

State how the status shows in the digital credential and in any public register, so that employers can check it.

When the standard changes

Frameworks and scheme standards change. When the framework publishes a new version, decide whether existing credentials stay valid until expiry, and what holders need to do to move to the new version. SFIA 10, for example, is in consultation and targeted for release around Q4 2027. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. Your scheme should state which framework version it uses and a rule for version change, so holders and employers know where they stand.

Agent-era renewal

If the skill changes because agents take on tasks, renewal evidence should show current practice: how the holder now works with agents, supervises them and keeps authorship. A renewal route that asks only for old-style evidence may leave the credential out of date. Review performance statements at each scheme review.

Worked example: Validity and renewal rules

Corporate academy. The logistics academy (illustrative) sets a three-year validity for its analyst credential. Rationale: the data tools change about every two to three years, and errors in stock analysis carry moderate cost. The default renewal route is a portfolio of two recent products with attestation, plus a 30-minute discussion. If the holder has not worked as an analyst for more than 12 months, they must complete a bridging assessment. If the framework version changes, current credentials stay valid until expiry, and renewals use the new version.

College. The college (illustrative) issues a credential for entry practitioners with a two-year validity, reflecting fast change in tools and the early stage of careers. Renewal requires evidence of 12 months of relevant work in the last 24, one attestation and a short discussion. Holders whose work has moved on to a higher level may apply for the higher-level credential instead of renewing.

Practice activity: Write the renewal rules

Write the validity and renewal section for your scheme, no more than one page:

1. Validity period and a written rationale using at least three of the factors above.
2. Renewal routes and the evidence each requires.
3. Rules for expiry, grace period, lapse and reinstatement.
4. Rules for suspension and withdrawal, and an appeal route.
5. A rule for a framework version change.
6. One sentence on how renewal evidence will reflect current work with agents.

Quiz: Renewal

Assessment and badge

The task: a competency assessment scheme

Write a competency assessment scheme for one role or skill at one level, in a framework of your choice. It must be usable by another organisation without your help. Aim for 8 to 12 pages (illustrative). Use your outputs from the practice activities, and improve them.

Your scheme must contain:

1. Target and framework: the role or skill, the framework and level, the framework version and a licence note. Four to eight performance statements.
2. Assessment design: how the three evidence forms (product, testimony, discussion) work together, with a map from performance statements to evidence.
3. Evidence specification: the portfolio rules, quality criteria and the agent-use declaration.
4. Attestation rules: eligibility, structured form and safeguards.
5. Professional discussion protocol: structure, question bank, adjustments and records.
6. Assessor and attester training and calibration plan: roles, training, calibration cycle and agreement measure.
7. Validity and renewal rules: period with rationale, routes, lapse, suspension, withdrawal, appeal and version change.
8. Integrity and AI section: how the scheme handles authorship and supervision of work produced with agents, and how it will be reviewed.

Do not include real personal data or confidential client material. Do not state that completing the scheme or the course proves competency in a job.

Rubric

A trained assessor rates each criterion on four levels: 1 Not yet, 2 Developing, 3 Meets, 4 Strong. The file does not grade your scheme.

Pass rule

To earn the badge "Workplace-Based Competency Assessment (Ability, L4)" (alignment code ICSF-ASMT-L4-A):

1. Score at least 7 out of 10 on the knowledge check below (you may retake it).
2. Achieve level 3 "Meets" or higher on every rubric criterion. A single criterion at level 2 may be resubmitted once after feedback.
3. Submit the scheme document as badge evidence.

Evidence submitted for the badge

• The scheme document (PDF or word-processed file).
• A one-page cover note naming the framework version, the target and the author, and confirming that no confidential or personal data is included.

The assessor may ask for a short conversation about your scheme.

Knowledge check

Sources and further reading

Status as of November 2026; check before publishing.

The following are sources of official texts and standards bodies. Check each for the current version before use.

• SFIA Foundation: owner of the Skills Framework for the Information Age (SFIA). Consult the SFIA Foundation's official website for SFIA 9, the licence terms and the status of SFIA 10. SFIA 9 is established. SFIA 10 is in consultation, with a release targeted around Q4 2027. Check the licence terms before reproducing descriptors in course material.
• ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF): the ICoBC framework that defines the skill ASMT "Assessment and evidence", levels and stages used in this course. Obtain the current version from ICoBC (info@icobc.net).
• ICB-P02 Assessment Design for Credentials: Valid, Reliable, Fair: the prerequisite course in the ICoBC Kursbibliothek.
• ISO/IEC 17024: international standard on general requirements for bodies operating certification of persons. Consult the International Organization for Standardization for the current edition. Relevant to assessment, examiner competence and certification validity.
• ISO 21001: international standard on management systems for educational organisations. Consult the International Organization for Standardization for the current edition.
• Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing: joint publication of the American Educational Research Association, the American Psychological Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education. Relevant to validity, reliability and fairness.