Preparing for Quality Review: the VRITE Self-Assessment

The Maturity Check, evidence and improvement plan before applying for the Global Quality Seal.

Course ID: ICB-P18

Framework alignment: ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF), skill QUAL "Quality assurance and accreditation" (VRITE pillar: Rigor), level L3 "Enable", stage A "Ability".

At level L3 the skill reads: runs self-assessment against a quality framework; prepares for external review; implements improvements. At the Ability stage you practise this on realistic tasks, in a controlled setting such as a case or project, using the knowledge you already have.

Who this course is for

• L&D and corporate academy leads
• Programme and micro-credential leads
• Quality, registry and admissions staff
• Professional bodies and sector associations
• ICoBC Accredited Partners

Prerequisite: ICB-F09 Quality in Credentialing: How Trust Is Built.

Learning outcomes. After this course you can:

1. Assess a credential programme against the VRITE criteria using the Maturity Check.
2. Collect and organise evidence for each pillar.
3. Prioritise improvements before an external review.
4. Prepare the application and the review interview for the Global Quality Seal.

Workload. This is a blended cohort course with 10 hours of notional learning. This file covers the self-paced part. Live and workshop elements appear as facilitator notes.

How it is assessed. You complete a Maturity Check with an evidence index and an improvement plan for a real programme or a realistic case. A tutor reviews the work with the rubric in "Assessment and badge". You also answer a short knowledge check in this file. The file does not grade your task.

Badge. "Preparing for Quality Review: the VRITE Self-Assessment (Ability, L3)", alignment code ICSF-QUAL-L3-A. Badge evidence: Maturity Check; evidence index; improvement plan.

Status note. The ICoBC VRITE criteria and the Global Quality Seal are at status Emerging. Indicators are not yet published, internal documents use different expansions of the acronym, and pilots are ongoing. This course therefore teaches a method you can reuse once the indicators are final. Where this course uses pillar names, they are working labels. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing.

How to use the practice material. Pick one programme to work on throughout the course. It can be a real credential programme you manage or the case supplied in each module. Keep a single working folder. By the end it holds your Maturity Check, evidence index and improvement plan.

The review process

What the Global Quality Seal review is for

The Global Quality Seal is the ICoBC mark for credential programmes that show quality across the VRITE pillars. An external review looks at your programme from outside. It checks that what you claim is true and that you can show it.

Because the indicators are still emerging, treat the review as a conversation about evidence. Reviewers want to see that you know your programme, that your claims match your records, and that you act on weaknesses.

A self-assessment is the step before that review. You run it on your own programme, using the same logic a reviewer will use. It has three aims:

• to find gaps while you still have time to close them;
• to build an evidence set that is easy to hand over;
• to give the team a shared, honest picture of where the programme stands.

The five stages of preparation

This course follows five stages, and each stage is one module:

1. Understand the review process. Know the steps, the roles and the timeline.
2. Gather evidence by pillar. Find and organise what proves your claims.
3. Run the gap analysis. Score each pillar with the Maturity Check.
4. Plan improvements. Choose which gaps to close first and who does what.
5. Prepare for the interview. Rehearse how you present the programme and answer questions.

Roles in the process

A self-assessment works best with named roles. Typical roles are:

• Review lead: owns the preparation, keeps the timeline and is the contact for the reviewers.
• Pillar owners: one person per pillar, who collects evidence and scores the pillar.
• Challenger: a person outside the programme team who tests scores and asks for proof.
• Sponsor: a senior person who approves resources for improvements.

In a small team one person may hold several roles. Keep the Challenger separate where you can. People who built the programme tend to score it generously.

What to expect from the external review

Exact steps may change as the pilots continue. Plan for these elements and check the current process with ICoBC before you apply:

• an application with a description of your programme and supporting evidence;
• a review of documents by trained reviewers;
• an interview with the people who run the programme;
• a decision, with feedback on strengths and areas to improve.

Worked example: a college plans its first review

A regional college, which we call Northfield College, runs a 60 hour "Digital Skills for Care Work" micro-credential. The programme lead, Amara, is the review lead. She builds a plan from the five stages:

• Weeks 1 and 2: she reads the ICoBC guidance, names pillar owners and books the Challenger, a quality officer from another faculty.
• Weeks 3 to 5: pillar owners collect evidence.
• Week 6: the team runs the Maturity Check and meets to agree scores.
• Weeks 7 to 10: the team closes the highest-priority gaps.
• Week 11: Amara and two colleagues rehearse the interview.
• Week 12: the application goes in.

All dates and durations are illustrative. Amara leaves slack at the end. She knows that improvements often take longer than planned.

Practice activity: build your preparation plan

1. Choose the programme you will work on for the whole course.
2. List the people who could fill the four roles. Mark any role that has no candidate.
3. Draw a simple timeline with the five stages. Put a date next to each stage.
4. Identify the single biggest risk to your timeline, for example a pillar owner with little time. Write one action to reduce it.
5. Save the plan in your working folder as "01 Preparation plan".

Check your understanding

Evidence by pillar

Evidence is a claim plus proof

Every statement you make about your programme is a claim. Evidence is the record that lets someone else check the claim. "Assessors are trained" is a claim. A training log with dates, names and content is evidence.

Good evidence has five qualities:

• Relevant: it relates directly to the claim.
• Current: it reflects how the programme works now.
• Specific: it names who, what and when.
• Verifiable: a reviewer can check it, or see where it came from.
• Sufficient: there is enough of it, across time and across cases, to show a pattern.

One document rarely proves a claim. A policy shows intent. Records show practice. Results show effect. Aim for at least two kinds for each important claim.

The five pillars and example evidence

The working labels for the pillars in this course are Value, Rigor, Inclusion, Trust and Evidence. Internal ICoBC documents use different expansions of the acronym, so check the current names before you apply. The evidence ideas below stay useful whichever labels are used.

Evidence where AI is used in the programme

If AI tools are part of your programme, reviewers can reasonably ask for extra evidence. This applies when AI is used in teaching, in assessment, in marking, in identity checks, in recommending content or in handling data about earners. Typical evidence includes:

• A register of AI use: where AI is used, for what task and by whom.
• Human oversight: who reviews AI outputs, how often, and what they can change.
• Assessment integrity: how you tell earner work from AI-generated work, and what the rules for earners are.
• Fairness checks: how you check that AI-supported decisions do not disadvantage groups of earners.
• Data handling: what earner data goes into AI tools, on what legal basis, and where it is stored.
• Disclosure: how you tell earners and employers that AI is used.

If you do not use AI in the programme, write that down in one sentence in the evidence index. A clear "not applicable" saves a reviewer a question.

Organise evidence in an index

An evidence index is a table that lets anyone find a document in under a minute. For each item record:

Worked example: a corporate academy builds an evidence index

A corporate academy in a logistics company offers a "Safe Warehouse Practice" credential to staff. Dev, the academy lead, owns the review. For the Rigor pillar he writes the claim: "All assessors are trained and their marking is checked."

He finds four items:

• R-01: assessor training log for the last two years (strong: names, dates, content).
• R-02: marking guide for the practical assessment (strong).
• R-03: a moderation record from one session (partial: only one session in two years).
• R-04: an email saying "moderation happens regularly" (weak: a statement, not a record).

He rates the claim as partly supported. He notes that R-04 should not be offered to reviewers as proof. The real gap is regular moderation records. He passes this to the gap analysis. All details are illustrative.

Practice activity: start your evidence index

1. Open your working folder and create a table with the seven fields above.
2. For each pillar, write two claims you make about your programme.
3. Find at least one piece of evidence for each claim. Enter it in the index and rate its strength.
4. Mark each claim with no evidence as "gap".
5. Add one line on AI: either list the AI evidence you hold, or write that AI is not used.
6. Save as "02 Evidence index (draft)".

Check your understanding

Gap analysis

The Maturity Check

The Maturity Check is a structured way to score your programme against each pillar. It uses a simple scale so that different people can reach similar scores from the same evidence.

This course uses a four-level working scale. Replace it with the official ICoBC scale and indicators when they are published.

Each pillar gets one level, plus a note that explains the score and points to evidence IDs from your index.

How to score a pillar

Follow the same steps for every pillar:

1. List the claims for the pillar and the evidence you hold for each.
2. Ask the level questions. Is there a written procedure? Is it applied the same way? Do records prove it? Is there a review cycle?
3. Choose the lowest level that all the evidence supports. If one required element is missing, score the pillar at the level below.
4. Write the reason in one or two sentences, with evidence IDs.
5. Have the Challenger review the score and ask for proof for any statement without an ID.

Score what you can show today. A plan to do something is not a record that you did it. Score the planned improvement later, in the improvement plan.

Show the gaps in a heatmap

A heatmap puts all pillar scores in one view. It helps the team see where to focus and helps the sponsor understand the picture quickly. Mark each cell with the level number and the pillar name, so the chart works without colour.

In this chart, lime marks a level of 3 or above and orange marks a level of 2 or below. The text label carries the same information.

Turn scores into gaps

A gap is the distance between the current level and the target level. Your target depends on your goal. A team might aim for level 3 in every pillar before applying. Ask the sponsor and the review lead to agree the target.

For each gap, write:

• the pillar and the current level;
• the target level;
• what is missing, in terms of procedure, records or review;
• the evidence IDs that support the current score.

Worked example: a training provider scores its Inclusion pillar

A private training provider, which we call Harbour Learning, runs a "Project Coordination" micro-credential for adult learners. The team pillar owner, Priya, scores Inclusion.

• Claim: "Learners with different needs can take part."
• Evidence: an accessibility statement on the website (I-01) and a note from a tutor on one learner adjustment (I-02).
• Missing: a written adjustments procedure, a record of requests and outcomes, and any review of whether the programme is accessible.

Priya scores the pillar at level 1, because the practice depends on individual tutors and little is written down. The Challenger agrees, and points out that the accessibility statement is a promise, not proof of practice. The target level is 3. The gap needs a written procedure, a request log and a first accessibility review. All details are illustrative.

Practice activity: run your Maturity Check

1. Use your draft evidence index from the last module.
2. Score each of the five pillars using the working scale.
3. Write a one or two sentence reason for each score, citing evidence IDs.
4. Ask your Challenger, or a course peer, to test two of your scores. Record what changed.
5. Draw your own heatmap, by hand or in a table, with level numbers in every cell.
6. For each pillar below your target, write the gap in one line.
7. Save as "03 Maturity Check".

Check your understanding

Improvement plan

From gaps to priorities

You will not close every gap before the review. A good plan chooses the gaps that matter most and shows who will do what by when. Prioritising is an honest decision, and you should be ready to explain it in the interview.

Use four questions to rank each gap:

1. Importance: How central is this gap to the programme's quality? A missing assessment moderation record matters more than a missing icon on a web page.
2. Risk: What happens if it stays open? Consider harm to earners, loss of trust, legal or data risk.
3. Effort: How much time, money and people does it take to close?
4. Time: Can it be closed, and shown with records, before the review?

Score each question from 1 (low) to 3 (high) for importance and risk, and 1 (high effort) to 3 (low effort) for effort. Add the scores. The total is a rough guide to discussion and no more. Add judgement on top.

A simple priority matrix

Plot gaps on two axes: impact on quality, and effort to close. This gives four groups:

• Do first: high impact, low effort.
• Plan carefully: high impact, high effort. Start early.
• Do when convenient: low impact, low effort.
• Review later: low impact, high effort.

Write an action that someone can finish

A good improvement action is specific and testable. Use this format:

• Action: what will be done, starting with a verb.
• Gap closed: pillar and evidence ID.
• Owner: one named person.
• Due date: a real date, before the application.
• Proof: the record that will show it is done.
• Resources: time or money needed.

The "Proof" field matters most for review. If an action produces no record, the reviewer cannot see it. Plan the record at the same time as the action.

Keep the plan honest and visible

Review the plan at a short meeting every one or two weeks. Mark each action as not started, in progress, done with proof or blocked. Add new actions when you discover new gaps. When you apply, you can show the plan as part of your evidence for the Evidence pillar. A programme that finds its own weaknesses and acts on them shows exactly the quality habit that reviewers look for.

Do not hide weaknesses. A known gap with a credible plan is a stronger position than an unknown gap that a reviewer finds.

Worked example: a corporate academy prioritises three gaps

The logistics academy from the evidence module has three gaps after its Maturity Check:

• Gap A: no regular moderation records (Rigor).
• Gap B: no register of AI use, although an AI tool gives practice feedback to learners (Trust, with an AI focus).
• Gap C: the programme page does not show how to verify a credential (Trust).

Dev ranks them. Gap A has high importance and moderate effort. Gap B has high risk and low effort, because a register is a table. Gap C has moderate importance and low effort.

His plan:

He starts with B because it is quick and closes a risk. All dates, owners and details are illustrative.

Practice activity: build your improvement plan

1. List the gaps from your Maturity Check.
2. Rank them with the four questions: importance, risk, effort and time.
3. Place each gap in the priority matrix.
4. Write actions for the top five gaps in the action format, with a named owner, a date and the proof that will exist.
5. Add one action related to AI evidence, or note that it does not apply.
6. List any gaps you will not close before the review, and write one sentence on why. This is your honest account for the interview.
7. Save as "04 Improvement plan".

Check your understanding

Preparing for the review interview

What the application and the interview do

The application tells the reviewers about your programme and points them to your evidence. The interview lets them test the story, ask about gaps and hear from the people who run the programme. Both draw on the work you have already done. The Maturity Check gives you the story, the evidence index gives you the proof and the improvement plan shows how you act.

Prepare the application

Whatever the final form looks like, a strong application tends to include:

• A clear programme description: purpose, audience, outcomes, assessment, duration and credential issued.
• A claim for each pillar, stated plainly, with evidence IDs.
• An honest self-assessment: your scores, with reasons.
• Your improvement plan: what you have closed and what is under way.
• A tidy evidence set, matched to the index and with no personal data of earners that is not needed.

Check every claim against the index. If a statement has no evidence ID, either find the evidence or change the statement. Ask someone who has not worked on the programme to read the application and mark anything unclear.

Keep the language plain. Short sentences, specific facts and numbers you can source work better than broad claims.

Prepare the interview

Reviewers want to hear from people who know the programme in detail. Choose a small team that covers the pillars, for example the review lead, an assessor, a person who handles data and a person who works with employers or learners.

Prepare in four steps:

1. Write a two minute overview that the review lead can say clearly: what the programme is, who it serves, where it is strong and what you are improving.
2. List likely questions for each pillar. Use the claims in your application. Reviewers tend to ask: "Can you show me?", "What happens when something goes wrong?" and "How do you know it works?"
3. Match each question to evidence. Write the evidence ID next to every answer so that you can find it fast.
4. Rehearse with a colleague who plays the reviewer. Include difficult questions about your gaps and, if relevant, about AI.

How to answer well

Good answers share a pattern:

• Answer the question first in one or two sentences.
• Give an example from practice, with a real case, a date or a number.
• Point to the record, for example "this is in the index as R-03".
• Say what you are improving if the question touches a gap.
• Admit what you do not know and offer to follow up. Do not guess.

Avoid reading from notes, using jargon and defending weak points. Reviewers value honesty and learning. Saying "this is a gap, here is our action and date" shows control of the programme.

Questions about AI

If AI is part of your programme, prepare to answer clearly:

• Where is AI used, and for what?
• Who checks AI outputs, and what can they change?
• How do you protect earner data in AI tools?
• How do you keep assessment fair and honest when earners may use AI?

Have the register of AI use and the oversight records ready, with evidence IDs. If you do not use AI, be ready to say so in one sentence and to explain how you would assess the risk before adopting it.

Worked example: a college rehearses a difficult question

At Northfield College, Amara rehearses with a colleague who plays the reviewer. The colleague asks: "Your Inclusion pillar looks weak. What are you doing about it?"

Amara's first answer rambles and defends the programme. Her colleague gives feedback: "Start with the gap, then the plan." Her second answer:

"Our Inclusion score is level 1 today. Adjustments depend on individual tutors and we have no written procedure. We started a procedure and a request log last month, and the first accessibility review is due in week 8. The plan is in the index as item P-04. We expect the log to show real cases within a term."

The second answer is short, honest and points to the record. The details are illustrative.

Practice activity: prepare your application summary and interview pack

1. Write a one page application summary for your programme: description, one claim per pillar with evidence IDs, your scores and your top three improvements.
2. Write your two minute overview as a script of about 250 words.
3. List three likely questions for each pillar, and write a short answer with evidence IDs for at least one question per pillar.
4. Prepare one answer about your weakest pillar, following the pattern: gap, action, date, record.
5. Prepare one answer about AI, or about why AI is not used.
6. Rehearse with a peer for 20 minutes. Ask for feedback on clarity and honesty. Note two changes.
7. Save as "05 Application summary and interview pack".

Check your understanding

Assessment and badge

The assessed task

You complete one task for a programme of your choice, real or realistic. A tutor reviews it. You submit four items:

1. Maturity Check: a score and a reason for each of the five pillars, with evidence IDs, and a gap statement for each pillar below your target.
2. Evidence index: the table with the seven fields, covering all five pillars, with a strength rating for each item and a note on AI (evidence held, or a statement that AI is not used).
3. Improvement plan: at least five prioritised actions in the action format, a priority matrix, and a list of gaps you will not close before the review with a reason.
4. Interview preparation notes: the one page application summary, the two minute overview and prepared answers for at least one question per pillar, including your weakest pillar and AI.

Keep your submission to one folder or one combined document. Remove or anonymise personal data of earners and staff. If you use a real programme, get permission from its owner before you share material.

Time: the task takes about 4 hours of the 10 hours of notional learning, and the live sessions take the rest.

Rubric for the tutor

The tutor rates each criterion at one of four levels. The file does not grade your task.

Pass rule. To earn the badge you need Competent or Strong on all five criteria, and at least 8 of the 10 questions in the knowledge check below answered correctly. If you receive Developing or Not yet on any criterion, the tutor gives written feedback and you may resubmit that part once.

Badge evidence. Maturity Check; evidence index; improvement plan.

Badge. "Preparing for Quality Review: the VRITE Self-Assessment (Ability, L3)", alignment code ICSF-QUAL-L3-A.

This badge records that you practised the skill on a realistic task and met the rubric. It does not prove competence in any particular job.

Final knowledge check

Sources and further reading

Status as of November 2026; check before publishing.

• ICoBC, International Council on Badges and Credentials, Berlin: official information on the ICoBC VRITE criteria, the Global Quality Seal and the ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF). Check the ICoBC website and the course library for the current documents. Indicators for the VRITE criteria are not yet published, and the Global Quality Seal is at pilot stage.
• ISO 9000, Quality management systems: Fundamentals and vocabulary. International Organization for Standardization.
• ISO 9001, Quality management systems: Requirements. International Organization for Standardization.
• ISO/IEC 17024, Conformity assessment: General requirements for bodies operating certification of persons. International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission.
• Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), together with partner organisations.
• European Qualifications Framework (EQF). European Union.
• ICB-F09 Quality in Credentialing: How Trust Is Built. ICoBC course, prerequisite for this course.