NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. 2
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4
1. Tool Components .............................................................................................................. 5
2. Ideal Characteristics .......................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Portfolio .................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Observation Methods ............................................................................................. 10
2.3 Product Based Methods ......................................................................................... 13
2.4 Interview Methods .................................................................................................. 16
3. Quality Checks ................................................................................................................ 18
Appendix.............................................................................................................................. 20
A.1 Assessment Tool: Self Assessment ....................................................................... 21
A.2 Assessment Tool: Competency Mapping .............................................................. 23
Glossary of Terms ............................................................................................................... 24

This work has been produced by the Work-based Education Research Centre of Victoria
University in conjunction with Bateman and Giles Pty Ltd as part of a project commissioned by the
National Quality Council in 2008 with funding provided through the Australian Government
Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations and state and territory governments.

© Commonwealth of Australia 2009

This document is available under a “Preserve Integrity” licence – see http://www.aesharenet.com.au/P4

for details. All other rights reserved. For licensing enquiries contact [email protected].

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 2

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

List of Tables
TABLE 1: IDEAL CHARACTERISTICS OF AN ASSESSMENT TOOL .............................................................. 7
TABLE 2: PORTFOLIO: EXEMPLAR ASSESSMENT TOOL FEATURES. ....................................................... 8
TABLE 3: W ORKPLACE OBSERVATION: EXEMPLAR ASSESSMENT TOOL FEATURES. .......................... 10
TABLE 4: PRODUCT BASED METHODS: EXEMPLAR ASSESSMENT TOOL FEATURES. .......................... 13
TABLE 5: INTERVIEW: EXEMPLAR ASSESSMENT TOOL FEATURES. ...................................................... 16

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 3

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

Introduction

This Guide is a practical resource material for assessors and assessor trainers seeking
technical guidance on how to develop and/or review assessment tools. The Guide is not
intended to be mandatory, exhaustive or definitive but instead it is intended to be aspirational
and educative in nature.

There are three sections to this Guide. Section 1 explains what an assessment tool is,
including its essential components.

Section 2 identifies a number of ideal characteristics of an assessment tool and provides four
examples of how each of these characteristics can be built into the design for four methods of
assessment: observation, interview, portfolio and product-based assessments. These four
examples encapsulate methods that require candidates to either do (observation), say
(interview), write (portfolio) or create (product) something. In fact, any assessment activity can
be classified according to these four broad methods.

Section 3 provides an overview of three quality assurance processes (i.e. panelling, piloting
and trialling) that could be undertaken prior to implementing a new assessment tool.

There is also an appendix that contains the following two exemplar templates for assessors:
 Assessment Tool: Self Assessment: A self assessment checklist for the assessor to check
that s/he has included within his/her tool the administration, decision making, recording
and reporting conditions of the tool. The self assessment could be subsequently used by
the panel during the consensus meeting (if so, the checklist would need to be attached to
the tool); and
 Competency Mapping Tool: A template to assist assessors with mapping the key
components within their task to the Unit(s) of Competency to demonstrate content validity.
This should be attached to the assessment tool for validation purposes. Note that multiple
copies may need to be produced for each task within an assessment tool.

Finally, as a number of technical assessment concepts have been referred to throughout this
Guide, a Glossary of Terms has been included.

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 4

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

1. Tool Components

According to the AQTF Essential Standards for Registration, an assessment tool is defined as.

The instrument(s) and procedures used to gather and interpret evidence of competence:

a) Instrument- the specific questions or activity used to assess competence by the assessment method
selected. An assessment instrument may be supported by a profile of acceptable performance and the
decision-making rules or guidelines to be used by the assessors.

b) Procedures – the information or instructions given to the candidate and the assessor about how the
assessment is to be conducted and recorded.

In accordance with the AQTF Essential Standards for Registration, an assessment tool
includes the following components:
 The learning or competency unit(s) to be assessed;
 The target group, context and conditions for the assessment;
 The tasks to be administered to the candidate;
 An outline of the evidence to be gathered from the candidate;
 The evidence criteria used to judge the quality of performance (i.e. the assessment
decision making rules); as well as
 The administration, recording and reporting requirements.

To assist with validation and/or moderation, the tool should also provide evidence of how
validity and reliability have been tested and built into the design and use of the tool.

In some instances, all the components within the assessment tool may not necessarily be
present within the same document. That is, it is not necessary that the hard copy tool holds all
components. It may be that the tool makes reference to information in another
document/material/tool held elsewhere. This would help avoid repetition across a number of
tools (e.g. the context, as well as the recording and reporting requirements of the tool may be
the same for a number of tools and therefore, may be just cited within one document but
referred to within all tools).

The quality test of any assessment tool is the capacity for another assessor to use and
replicate the assessment procedures without any need for further clarification by the tool
developer. That is, it should be a stand-alone assessment tool.

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 5

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

2. Ideal Characteristics
A number of ideal characteristics of an assessment tool have been provided in Table 2. This
is referred to hereon as the ‘assessment tool framework.’ The framework could be used by:
 Assessors during tool development (refer to Template A.1 in the appendix for an example
of a self-assessment checklist); as well as
 Members of a Consensus Group during a validation and/or moderation meeting (refer to
the Implementation Guide: Validation and Moderation for an example of how it could be
used to review assessment tools post assessment).

Following Table 1, four examples have been included in this Guide to illustrate how the
assessment tool framework could be applied to the development of assessment tools. It
should be acknowledge that the examples provided are not assessment tools but instead, are
guidance as to what key features should be in an assessment tool based on the specific
assessment method. These four examples encapsulate methods that require candidates to
either do (observation), say (interview), write (portfolio) and create (build) something. In fact,
any assessment activity can be classified according to these four broad methods.

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 6

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

Table 1: Ideal Characteristics of an Assessment Tool

Component Description

The context The target group and purpose of the tool should be described. This should include a
description of the background characteristics of the target group that may impact on the
candidate performance (e.g. literacy and numeracy requirements, workplace
experience, age, gender etc).

Competency The components of the Unit(s) of Competency that the tool should cover should be
Mapping described. This could be as simple as a mapping exercise between the components of
the task (e.g. each structured interview question) and components within a Unit or
cluster of Units of Competency. The mapping will help to determine the sufficiency of
the evidence to be collected. An example of how this can be undertaken has been
provided in Template A.2 (refer to the Appendix).

The information to Outlines the task(s) to be provided to the candidate that will provide the opportunity for
be provided to the the candidate to demonstrate the competency. It should prompt them to say, do, write
candidate or create something.

The evidence to be Provides information on the evidence to be produced by the candidate in response to
collected from the the task.
candidate

Decision making The rules to be used to:

rules Check evidence quality (i.e. the rules of evidence);
Judge how well the candidate performed according to the standard expected (i.e.
the evidence criteria); and
Synthesise evidence from multiple sources to make an overall judgement.

Range and Outlines any restriction or specific conditions for the assessment such as the location,
conditions time restrictions, assessor qualifications, currency of evidence (e.g. for portfolio based
assessments), amount of supervision required to perform the task (i.e. which may
assist with determining the authenticity of evidence) etc.

Materials/resources Describes access to materials, equipment etc that may be required to perform the task.
required

Assessor Defines the amount (if any) of support provided.

intervention

Reasonable This section should describe the guidelines for making reasonable adjustments to the
adjustments (for way in which evidence of performance is gathered (e.g. in terms of the information to
enhancing fairness be provided to the candidate and the type of evidence to be collected from the
and flexibility) candidate) without altering the expected performance standards (as outlined in the
decision making rules).

Validity evidence Evidence of validity (such as face, construct, predictive, concurrent, consequential and
content) should be provided to support the use of the assessment evidence for the
defined purpose and target group of the tool.

Reliability evidence If using a performance based task that requires professional judgement of the
assessor, evidence of reliability could include providing evidence of:
The level of agreement between two different assessors who have assessed the
same evidence of performance for a particular candidate (i.e. inter-rater reliability);
and
The level of agreement of the same assessor who has assessed the same
evidence of performance of the candidate, but at a different time (i.e. intra-rater
reliability).
If using objective test items (e.g. multiple choice tests) than other forms of reliability
should be considered such as the internal consistency of a test (i.e. internal reliability)
as well as the equivalence of two alternative assessment tasks (i.e. parallel forms).

Recording The type of information that needs to be recorded and how it is to be recorded and
requirements stored, including duration.

Reporting For each key stakeholder, the reporting requirements should be specified and linked to
requirements the purpose of the assessment.

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 7

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

2.1 PORTFOLIO

Note a portfolio is defined here as a purposeful collection of samples of annotated and

validated pieces of evidence (e.g. written documents, photographs, videos, audio tapes).

Table 2: Portfolio: Exemplar Assessment Tool Features.

Component Feature Generic Application

The context The purpose and target The target group is XXX candidates undertaking the Certificate of XXX. This
group should be tool assists with assessing the candidate’s application of knowledge and skills
described and will need to be assessed in conjunction with XXX (e.g. interview) to
ensure adequate coverage of the entire Unit of Competency.

Competency Map key components of The assessment criteria used to evaluate the contents of the portfolio should
Mapping task to the Units(s) of be mapped directly against the Unit(s) of Competency. This will help to
Competency (content determine the sufficiency of the evidence to be collected and determine
validity) – refer to whether any other aspects of the Unit(s) of competency need to be collected
Template A.2 elsewhere.

Information to Outline the task to be The tool should provide instructions to the candidate for how the portfolio
candidate provided to the should be put together. For example, the candidate may be instructed to:
candidate that will Select the pieces of evidence to be included;
provide the opportunity Provide explanations of each piece of evidence;
for the candidate to Include samples of evidence only if they take on new meaning within the
demonstrate the context of other entries;
competency. It should Include evidence of self-reflection;
prompt them to say, do, Map each piece of evidence to the Unit(s) of Competency;
write or create Include evidence of growth or development; and
something. Include a table of contents for ease of navigation.

Evidence from Provides information on The instructions for submitting the portfolio should be included here as well as
candidate the evidence to be a description of the evidence criteria that would be used to assess the
produced by the portfolio.
candidate in response to
the task.
Decision The rules to be used to: This section should outline the procedures for checking the appropriateness
making rules check evidence and trustworthiness of the evidence included within the portfolio such as the:
quality (i.e. the rules Currency of evidence within the portfolio - is the evidence relatively
of evidence) recent).The rules for determining currency would need to be specified
judge how well the here (e.g. less than five years);
candidate performed Authenticity -is there evidence included within the portfolio that verifies
according to the that the evidence is that of the candidate and/or if part of a team
standard expected contribution, what aspects were specific to the candidate (e.g. testimonial
(i.e. the evidence statements from colleagues, opportunity to verify qualifications with
criteria); and issuing body etc);
synthesise evidence Sufficiency - is there enough evidence to demonstrate to the assessor
from multiple competence against the entire unit of competency, including the critical
sources to make an aspects of evidence described in the Evidence Guide (e.g. evidence of
overall judgement consistency of performance across time and contexts);
Content Validity – does the evidence match the unit of competency (e.g.
relevance of evidence and justification by candidate for inclusion, as well
as annotations and reflections);
Once the evidence within the portfolio has been determined to be
trustworthy and appropriate, the evidence will need to be judged against
evidence criteria such as:
Profile descriptions of varying levels of achievement (e.g.
competent versus not yet competent performance (also
referred to as standard referenced frameworks1);
Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)2 that
describe typical performance from low to high (also
referred to as analytical rubrics); and
The Unit of Competency presented in some form of a checklist.

The outcomes of the portfolio assessment should be recorded and signed and

1 Standard referenced frameworks requires the development and use of scoring rubrics that are expressed in the form of ordered, transparent descriptions
of quality performance that are specific to the Unit of Competency, underpinned by a theory of learning and are hierarchical and sequential.
2
Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) are constructed by identifying examples of the types of activities or behaviour typically performed by
individuals with varying levels of expertise. Each behaviour/activity is then ordered in terms of increasing proficiency and linked to a point on a rating scale,
with typically no more than five points on the scale. Each behaviourally anchored rating scale can be treated as a separate item on the Observation Form in
which each item requires the observer to select the statement that best describes the performance of the candidate’s application of skills and knowledge in
the workplace.

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 8

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

Component Feature Generic Application

dated by the assessor and the comment section should indicate where there
are any gaps or further evidence required.

Range and Outlines any restriction It should be explained to candidates (preferably in written format prior to the
conditions or specific conditions for preparation of the portfolio) that the portfolio should not be just an overall
the assessment such as collection of candidate’s work, past assessment outcomes, checklists and of
the location, time the information commonly kept in candidates’ cumulative folders. The
restrictions, assessor candidate should be instructed to include samples of work only if they take on
qualifications etc. new meaning within the context of other entries. Consideration of evidence
across time and varying contexts should be emphasised to the candidate.
Candidate should also be instructed to only include recent evidence
(preferable less than five years) although more dated evidence can be used
but should be defended for inclusion. Such information should be provided in
written format to the candidate prior to preparing the portfolio.

Materials/resou Describes access to Materials to be provided to the candidate to assist with preparing his/her
rces required materials, equipment etc portfolio may include access to: photocopier, personal human resource files
that may be required. etc., if required.

Assessor Defines the amount (if Clarification of portfolio requirements permitted.

intervention any) of support
provided.

Reasonable Guidelines for making An electronic and/or product based version of the portfolio may be prepared
adjustments reasonable adjustments by the candidate. The portfolio may include videos, photographs etc.
to the way in which
evidence of performance
is gathered without
altering the expected
performance standards

Validity Evidence of validity to Evidence of the validity of the portfolio tool may include:
support the use of the Detailed mapping of the evidence used to judged the portfolio with the
assessment evidence Unit(s) of Competency (content validity);
for the defined purpose Inclusion of documents produced within the workplace and/or has direct
and target group of the application to the workplace (face validity);
tool. Evidence that the tool was panelled with subject matter experts (face and
content validity);
The tool clearly specifying the purpose of the tool, the target population,
the evidence to be collected, decision making rules, reporting
requirements, as well as the boundaries and limitations of the tool
(consequential validity); and
Evidence of how the literacy and numeracy requirements of the unit(s) of
competency have been adhered to (construct validity).

Reliability Evidence of the Evidence of the reliability of the portfolio tool may include:
reliability of the tool Detailed scoring and/or evidence criteria for the content to be judged
should be included. within the portfolio (inter-rater reliability); and
Recording sheet to record judgements in a consistent and methodical
manner (intra-rater reliability).

Recording The type of information The following information should be recorded and maintained:
requirements that needs to be The Portfolio tool (for validation and/or moderation purposes);
recorded and how it is to Samples of candidate portfolios of varying levels of quality (for
be recorded and stored, moderation purposes); and
including duration. Summary Results of each candidate performance on the portfolio as well
as recommendations for future assessment and/or training etc in
accordance with the organisation’s record keeping policy.

The outcomes of moderation and validation meetings should also be recorded

in accordance with the organisation’s requirements. The overall assessment
result should be recorded electronically on the organisation’s candidate record
keeping management system.

Reporting For each key Candidate: Overall decision and recommendations for any future
requirements stakeholder, the training. Progress toward qualification and/or grades/competencies
reporting requirements achieved;
should be specified and Trainer: Recommendations for future training requirements; and
linked to the purpose of Workplace Supervisor: Assessment results and competencies achieved.
the assessment.

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 9

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

2.2 OBSERVATION METHODS yxvu

(e.g. Workplace Observation, Simulation Exercise, Third Party Report)

Table 3: Workplace Observation: Exemplar Assessment Tool Features.

Component Feature Generic application

The context The purpose and target group The target group is XXX candidates undertaking the Certificate
should be described of XXX. The candidate should be able to demonstrate
evidence within the boundaries of their workplace context.
Evidence can be collected either on and/or off the job. The tool
has been designed to be used to assess candidate’s
competency acquisition following training (e.g. summative)
and/or may be used to demonstrate recognition of current
competency. This tool assists with assessing the candidate’s
ability to apply skills and knowledge and will need to be
assessed in conjunction with an interview to ensure adequate
coverage of the entire Unit of Competency.

Competency Map key components of task Evidence criteria needs to be established to judge the quality of
Mapping to the Units(s) of Competency the observed performance. Each evidence criterion could be
(content validity) – refer to presented as a separate item on an Observation Form. Each
Template A.2 item on the Observation Form (i.e. the form to be used to
record observations made by the assessor) should be mapped
to the relevant sections within the Unit of Competency. This will
help to determine the sufficiency of the evidence to be collected
and determine whether any other aspects of the Unit(s) of
competency need to be collected elsewhere.

Information to Outline the task to be This may be part of a real or simulated workplace activity. Prior
candidate provided to the candidate that to the assessment event, the candidate must be informed that
will provide the opportunity they will be assessed against the Observation Form and should
for the candidate to be provided with a copy of the Form. Details about the
demonstrate the competency. conditions of the assessment should also be communicated to
It should prompt them to say, the candidate as part of these instructions (e.g. announced
do, write or create something. versus unannounced observations, period of observation).

Evidence from Provides information on the Observations of the candidate performing a series of tasks and
candidate evidence to be produced by activities as defined by the information provided to the
the candidate in response to candidate. The performance may be:
the task. Part of his/her normal workplace activities;
A result of a structured activity set by the observer in the
workplace setting; and
A result of a simulated activity set by the
assessor/observer.
This section should outline what evidence of performance the
assessor should be looking for during the observation of the
candidate. The evidence required should be documented and
presented in an Observation Form.

Decision The rules to be used to: To enhance the inter-rater reliability of the observation (i.e.
making rules check evidence quality increasing the likelihood that another assessor would make the
(i.e, the rules of same judgement, based upon the same evidence, as the
evidence); assessor), an Observation Form should be developed and used
judge how well the to judge and record candidate observations. The observer
candidate performed should record the assessors (or observers) observations of the
according to the standard candidate’s performance directly onto the Observation Form.
expected (i.e. the The observer should be instructed as to whether to record
evidence criteria); and his/her observations on the Observation Form during and/or
synthesise evidence from after the observation.
multiple sources to make
an overall judgement. The Observation Form may have a series of items in which
each key component within the Unit of Competency is
represented by a number of items. Each item would be the
evidence criteria. Each item may be presented as:
a Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS;
standard referenced frameworks (or profiles);
a checklist; and/or
open ended statements to record impressions/notes made
by the observer.
Instructions on how to make an overall judgement of the

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 10

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

Component Feature Generic application

competence of the candidate would need to be documented

(e.g. do all items have to be observed by the assessor?). The
form should also provide the opportunity for the observer to
record that s/he has not had the opportunity to observe the
candidate applying these skills and knowledge. Again,
instructions on how to treat not observed items on the checklist
would need to be included within the tool. The form should also
be designed to record the number of instances and/or period of
observation (this will help determine the level of sufficiency of
the evidence to be collected), as well as the signature of the
observer; and the date of observation(s) (to authenticate the
evidence and to determine the level of currency).

Range and Outlines any restriction or Assessors need to provide the necessary materials to the
conditions specific conditions for the candidate, as well as explain or clarify any concerns/questions.
assessment such as the The period of observation should be communicated to the
location, time restrictions, observer and candidate and this would need to be negotiated
assessor qualifications etc. and agreed to by workplace colleagues, to minimise
interruptions to the everyday activities and functions of the
workplace environment.

Materials/ Describes access to The tool should also specify the materials required to record the
resources materials, equipment etc that candidate’s performance. For example:
required may be required to perform A copy of the Unit(s) of Competency;
the task. The Observation Form;
Pencil/paper; and
Video camera.
In addition, any specific equipment required by the candidate to
perform the demonstration and/or simulation should be
specified.

Assessor Defines the amount (if any) of In cases where observations are to be made by an internal staff
intervention support provided member and are to be unannounced, the candidate needs to be
warned that s/he will be observed over a period of time for
purposes of formal assessment against the Unit(s) of
Competency. If the observer is external to the workplace (e.g.
teacher or trainer), s/he will need to ensure that the time and
date of the visit to the candidate’s workplace is confirmed and
agreed to by the candidate and the workplace manager. The
external observer will need to inform the candidate and his/her
immediate supervisor of his/her presence on the worksite as
soon as possible. At all times, the external observer will need to
avoid hindering the activities of the workplace.

Reasonable Guidelines for making If the candidate does not have access to the workplace, then
adjustments reasonable adjustments to suitable examples of simulated activities may be used. This
the way in which evidence of section would outline any requirements and/or conditions for
performance is gathered the simulated activity.
without altering the expected
performance standards

Validity Evidence of validity should be Evidence of the validity of the observation tool may include:
included to support the use of Detailed mapping of the Observation Form with the Unit(s)
the assessment evidence for of Competency (content validity);
the defined purpose and Direct relevance and/or use within a workplace setting
target group of the tool. (face validity);
A report of the outcomes of the panelling exercise with
subject matter experts (face and content validity);
Observing a variety of performance over time (predictive
validity);
The tool clearly specifying the purpose of the tool, the
target population, the evidence to be collected, decision
making rules, reporting requirements as well as the
boundaries and limitations of the tool (consequential
validity); and
Evidence of how the literacy and numeracy requirements
of the Unit(s) of Competency have been adhered to
(construct validity).

Reliability Evidence of the reliability of Evidence of the reliability of the observation tool may include:
the tool should be included. Detailed evidence criteria for each aspect of performance
to be observed (inter-rater reliability); and
Recording sheet to record observations in a timely manner
(intra-rater reliability).

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 11

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

Component Feature Generic application

Recording The type of information that The following information should be recorded and maintained:
requirements needs to be recorded and The Observation Form (for validation and/or moderation
how it is to be recorded and purposes);
stored, including duration. Samples of completed forms of varying levels of quality
(for moderation purposes);
Summary Results of each candidate performance on the
Observation Forms as well as recommendations for future
assessment and/or training etc in accordance with the
organisation’s record keeping policy; and
The outcomes of validation and moderation meetings
should also be recorded in accordance with the
organisation’s requirements. The overall assessment
result should be recorded electronically on the
organisation’s candidate record keeping management
system.

Reporting For each key stakeholder, the Candidate: Overall decision and recommendations for any
requirements reporting requirements future training. Progress toward qualification and/or
should be specified and grades/competencies achieved;
linked to the purpose of the Trainer: Recommendations for future training
assessment. requirements; and
Workplace Supervisor: Assessment results and
competencies achieved.

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 12

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

2.3 PRODUCT BASED METHODS

(e.g. Reports, Displays, Work Samples.)

Table 4: Product Based Methods: Exemplar Assessment Tool Features.
Component Feature Generic application

The context The purpose and target The target group is XXX candidates undertaking the Certificate of
group should be described XXX. The candidate should be able to demonstrate evidence
within the boundaries of their workplace context. Evidence can be
collected either on and/or off the job. The tool has been designed
to be used to assess candidate’s competency acquisition following
training (e.g. summative) and/or may be used to demonstrate
recognition of current competency. This tool assists with assessing
the candidate’s ability to apply skills and knowledge and will need
to be assessed in conjunction with XXX (e.g. interview) to ensure
adequate coverage of the entire unit of competency.

Competency Map key components of Each key component of the activity should be mapped to the
Mapping task to the Units(s) of relevant sections within the Unit of Competency. For example, if
Competency (content the task is to produce a policy document, each key feature to be
validity) – refer to included in the policy document should be mapped to the Unit of
Template A.2 Competency. This will help to determine the sufficiency of the
evidence to be collected and determine whether any other aspects
of the Unit(s) of Competency need to be collected elsewhere.

Information to Outline the task to be The instructions for building/creating the product need to be clearly
candidate provided to the candidate specified and preferably provided to the candidate in writing prior
that will provide the to formal assessment. The evidence criteria to be applied to the
opportunity for the product should also be clearly specified and communicated
candidate to demonstrate (preferably in writing) to the candidate prior to the commencement
the competency. It should of the formal assessment.
prompt them to say, do,
write or create something. Details about the conditions of the assessment should also be
communicated to the candidate as part of these instructions (e.g.
access to equipment/resources, time restrictions, due date etc)

Evidence from Provides information on The tool needs to specify whether the product only will be
candidate the evidence to be assessed, or whether it will also include the process. If it is
produced by the candidate product based assessment only, then the candidate needs to be
in response to the task. instructed on what to include in the product. The conditions for
producing the product should be clearly specified in the
‘information to be provided to the candidate’; which will directly
influence the type of response to be produced by the candidate
(e.g. whether they are to draw a design, produce a written policy
document, build a roof etc). If the Tool also incorporates
assessing the process of building the product, then the
observations of the process would need to be also judged and
recorded (refer to the Tool Characteristic – Observation Methods
for guidance). In relation to product based assessment only, the
candidate would need to be instructed on how to present his/her
product for example:
Portfolio (possibly containing written documents, photos,
videos etc);
Display or exhibition of work; and
Written document etc.

Decision The rules to be used to: This section should outline the procedures for checking the
making rules check evidence appropriateness and trustworthiness of the product evidence such
quality (i.e. the rules as its:
of evidence); Currency - is the product relatively recent. The rules for
judge how well the determining currency would need to be specified here (e.g.
candidate performed less than five years);
according to the Authenticity - is there evidence included within the product
standard expected that verifies that the product has been produced by the
(i.e. the evidence candidate and/or if part of a team contribution, what aspects
criteria); and were specific to the candidate (e.g. testimonial statements
synthesise evidence from colleagues); and
from multiple sources Sufficiency - is there enough evidence to demonstrate to the
to make an overall assessor competence against the entire Unit of Competency,
judgement. including the critical aspects of evidence described in the
Evidence Guide (e.g. evidence of consistency of performance

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 13

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

Component Feature Generic application

across time and contexts).

To enhance the inter-rater reliability of the assessment of the

product, the criteria to be used to judge the quality of the product
should be developed. Such criteria (referred hereon as evidence
criteria) should be displayed in a Product Form to be completed by
the assessor. The assessor should record his/her judgements of
the product directly onto a Product Form.

There are many different ways in which the form could be

designed. For example, the form may have broken down the task
into key components to be performed by the candidate to produce
the product. Each key component may be assessed individually
using analytical rubrics (also referred to as behaviourally anchored
rating scales (BARS)), or the product overall may be compared to
a holistic rubric describing varying levels of performance (also
referred to as standard referenced frameworks or profiles) or it
simply may be judged using a checklist approach.

The candidate should be provided with the evidence criteria prior

to commencing building his/her product.

Range and Outlines any restriction or Assessors need to provide the necessary materials to the
conditions specific conditions for the candidate, as well as explain or clarify any concerns/questions.
assessment such as the The time allowed to build the product should be communicated to
location, time restrictions, the candidate and if there are any restrictions on where and when
assessor qualifications the product can be developed, this would also need to be clearly
etc. specified to the candidate.

Materials/ Describes access to The tool should also specify the materials required by the
resources materials, equipment etc candidate to build the product. It should also specify the materials
required that may be required to required for the assessor to complete the form. For example:
perform the task. A copy of the Unit(s) of Competency;
The Product Form;
Pencil/paper; and
Specific technical manuals/workplace documents etc.

Assessor Defines the amount (if The amount of support permitted by the assessor, workplace
intervention any) of support provided. supervisor and/or trainers needs to be clearly documented.

Reasonable Guidelines for making If the creation of the product requires access to the workplace,
adjustments reasonable adjustments to then suitable examples of simulated activities may be used to
the way in which evidence produce the product if the candidate does not have access to the
of performance is workplace.
gathered without altering
the expected performance
standards (as outlined in
the decision making
rules).

Validity Evidence of validity should Evidence of the validity of the product tool may include:
be included to support the Detailed mapping of the key components within the task with
use of the assessment the Unit(s) of Competency (content validity);
evidence for the defined Direct relevance and application to the workplace (face
purpose and target group validity);
of the tool. A report of the outcomes of the panelling exercise with
subject matter experts (face and content validity);
The tool clearly specifying the purpose of the tool, the target
population, the evidence to be collected, decision making
rules, reporting requirements as well as the boundaries and
limitations of the tool (consequential validity); and
Evidence of how the literacy and numeracy requirements of
the Unit(s) of Competency have been adhered to (construct
validity).

Reliability Evidence of reliability of Evidence of the reliability of the observation tool may include:
the tool should be Detailed evidence criteria for each aspect of the product to be
included. judged (inter-rater reliability); and
Recording sheet to record judgements in a consistent and
methodical manner (intra-rater reliability).

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 14

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

Component Feature Generic application

Recording The type of information The following information should be recorded and maintained:
requirements that needs to be recorded The Product Form (for validation and/or moderation
and how it is to be purposes);
recorded and stored, Samples of completed forms of varying levels of quality (for
including duration. moderation purposes); and
Summary Results of each candidate performance on the
Product Forms as well as recommendations for future
assessment and/or training etc in accordance with the
organisation’s record keeping policy.

The outcomes of validation and moderation meetings should also

be recorded in accordance with the organisation’s requirements.
The overall assessment result should be recorded electronically
on the organisation’s candidate record keeping management
system.

Reporting For each key stakeholder, Candidate: Overall decision and recommendations for any
requirements the reporting future training. Progress toward qualification and/or
requirements should be grades/competencies achieved;
specified and linked to the Trainer: Recommendations for future training requirements;
purpose of the and
assessment. Workplace Supervisor: Assessment results and
competencies achieved.

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 15

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

2.4 INTERVIEW METHODS

(e.g. structured, semi-structured, unstructured interviews)

Table 5: Interview: Exemplar Assessment Tool Features.

Component Feature Generic application

The context The purpose and target The target group is XXX candidates undertaking the Certificate of XXX. This
group should be described tool assists with assessing the candidate’s knowledge and understanding and
will need to be assessed in conjunction with XXX (e.g. an observation of
performance and/or portfolio) to ensure adequate coverage of the entire Unit
of Competency (i.e. sufficiency of evidence).

Competency Map key components of Each question within the interview schedule should be mapped to the
Mapping task to the Units(s) of relevant sections within the Unit of Competency. This will help to determine
Competency (content the sufficiency of the evidence to be collected and determine whether any
validity) – refer to Template other aspects of the Unit(s) of competency need to be collected elsewhere.
A.2

Information to Outline the task to be The interview schedule may be structured, semi-structured and unstructured.
candidate provided to the candidate If using structured and/or semi-structured interview techniques, each question
that will provide the to be asked in the interview session should be listed and presented within the
opportunity for the interview schedule. The type of questions that could be asked may include
candidate to demonstrate open ended; diagnostic; information seeking; challenge; action; prioritization,
the competency. It should prediction; hypothetical; extension; and/or generalisation questions.
prompt them to say, do,
write or create something. When designing the interview schedule, the assessor will need to decide
whether to:
Provide the candidate with the range of questions prior to the
assessment period;
Provide the candidate with written copies of the questions during the
interview;
Allow prompting;
Place restrictions on the number of attempts;
Allow access to materials etc throughout the interview period; and
Allow the candidate to select his/her preferred response format (e.g. oral
versus written).

Evidence from Provides information on the Instructions on how the candidate is expected to respond to each question
candidate evidence to be produced by (e.g. oral, written etc). This section should also outline how responses will be
the candidate in response recorded (e.g. audio taped, written summaries by interviewer etc).
to each question.

Decision The rules to be used to: Procedures for judging the quality and acceptability of the responses. For
making rules check evidence quality each question, the rubric may outline:
(i.e. the rules of Typical, acceptable and/or model responses; and
evidence); BARS that describe typical responses of increasing cognitive
judge how well the sophistication that are linked to separate points on a rating scale
candidate performed (usually 3 to 4 points).
according to the The tool should outline the administration procedures for asking each
standard expected (i.e. question. For example, not all questions may need to be asked if they are
the evidence criteria); purely an indication of what may be asked. In such circumstances, the
and schedule should specify whether an assessors needs to ask a certain number
synthesise evidence of questions per category (as determined in the mapping exercise (see
from multiple sources competency targets). The tool should also provide guidelines to the assessor
to make an overall on how to combine the evidence against the interview with other forms of
judgement. evidence to make an overall judgement of competence (to ensure sufficiency
of evidence).

As the interview is to be administered by the assessor and conducted in

present time, there will be evidence of both currency and authenticity of the
evidence. However, if the candidate within the interview refers to past
activities etc that s/he has undertaken as evidence of competence, then
decision making rules need to be established to check the currency and
authenticity of such claims.

Range and Outlines any restriction or The tool should also specify any restrictions on the number of attempts to
conditions specific conditions for the answer the interview questions and/or time restrictions (if applicable).
assessment such as the
location, time restrictions,
assessor qualifications etc.

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 16

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

Component Feature Generic application

Materials/ Describes access to The interview schedule should specify the type of materials provided to the
resources materials, equipment etc candidate which may include:
required that may be required to Written copies of the questions prior to or during the assessment;
perform the task. Access to materials (e.g. reference materials, policy documents,
workplace documents) during the interview to refer to (see the Range of
Variables for the specific Unit of Competency); and
Access to an interpreter/translator if the candidate is from a non English
speaking background (NESB).
The interview schedule should also specify the materials required by the
interviewer to record the candidate’s responses. For example, paper, pencil,
video camera, audio tape etc.

Assessor Defines the amount (if any) The tool should specify the extent to which the assessor may assist the
intervention of support provided. candidate to understand the questions.

Reasonable This section would describe Candidates may be given the option of responding to the interview questions
adjustments guidelines for making in writing, as opposed to oral response. Access to an interpreter during the
reasonable adjustments to interview may also be permitted if the competency is not directly related to
the way in which evidence oral communication skills in English. Similarly, candidates from NESB may be
of performance is gathered provided with a copy of the interview schedule in their native language prior to
without altering the the interview.
expected performance
standards (as outlined in
the decision making rules).

Validity Evidence of validity Evidence of the validity of the interview tool may include:
included to support the use Detailed mapping of the questions to be included within the interview
of the assessment tool for schedule with the Unit(s) of Competency (content validity);
similar purposes and target Direct relevance to the workplace setting (face validity);
groups. Evidence of panelling the questions with industry representatives during
the tool development phase (face validity);
The tool clearly specifying the purpose of the tool, the target population,
the evidence to be collected, decision making rules, reporting
requirements, as well as the boundaries and limitations of the tool
(consequential validity); and
Evidence of how the literacy and numeracy requirements of the unit(s) of
competency (construct validity) have been adhered to.

Reliability Evidence of the reliability of Evidence of the reliability of the interview tool may include:
the tool should be included. Detailed scoring and/or evidence criteria for each key question within the
interview schedule (inter-rater reliability);
Recording sheet to record responses in a timely, consistent and
methodical manner (intra-rater reliability); and
Audio taping responses and having them double marked blindly by
another assessor (i.e. where each assessor is not privy to the
judgements made by the other assessor) during the development phase
of the tool (inter-rater reliability).

Recording The type of information that The following information should be recorded and maintained:
requirements needs to be recorded and The Interview Schedule (for validation and/or moderation purposes);
how it is to be recorded and Samples of candidate responses to each item as well examples of
stored, including duration. varying levels of responses (for moderation purposes); and
Summary Results of each candidate performance on the interview as
well as recommendations for future assessment and/or training etc in
accordance with the organisation’s record keeping policy.

The outcomes of validation and moderation meetings should also be

recorded in accordance with the organisation’s requirements. The overall
assessment result should be recorded electronically on the organisation’s
candidate record keeping management system.

Reporting For each key stakeholder, Candidate: Overall decision and recommendations for any future
requirements the reporting requirements training. Progress toward qualification and/or grades/competencies
should be specified and achieved;
linked to the purpose of the Trainer: Recommendations for future training requirements; and
assessment. Workplace Supervisor: Assessment results and competencies achieved

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 17

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

3. Quality Checks
There are several checks that could be undertaken (as part of the quality assurance
procedures of the organisation) prior to implementing a new assessment tool. For example,
the tool could be:
 Panelled with subject matter experts (e.g. industry representatives and/or other colleagues
with subject matter expertise) to examine the tool to ensure that the content of the tool is
correct and relevant. The panellist should critique the tool for its:
Clarity;
Content accuracy;
Relevance;
Content validity (i.e. match to unit of competency and/or learning outcomes);
Avoidance of bias; and/or
Appropriateness of language for the target population.

 Panelled with colleagues who are not subject matter experts but have expertise in
assessment tool development. Such individuals could review the tool to check that it has:
Clear instructions for completion by candidates;
Clear instructions for administration by assessors; and
Avoidance of bias.

 Piloted with a small number of individuals who have similar characteristics to the target
population. Those piloting the tool should be encouraged to think out aloud when
responding to the tool. The amount of time required to complete the tool should be
recorded and feedback from the participants should be gathered about the clarity of the
administration instructions, the appropriateness of its demands (i.e. whether it is too
difficult or easy to perform), its perceived relevance to the workplace etc.

 Trialled with a group of individuals who also have similar characteristics to the target
population. The trial should be treated as though it is a dress rehearsal for the ‘real
assessment’. It is important during the trial period that an appropriate sample size is
employed and that the sample is representative of the expected levels of ability of the
target population. The findings from the trial will help predict whether the tool would:
Be cost effective to implement;
Be engaging to potential candidates;
Produce valid and reliable evidence;
Be too difficult and/or too easy for the target population;
Possibly disadvantage some individuals;
Able to produce sufficient and adequate evidence to address the purpose of the
assessment; as well as

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 18

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

Satisfy the reporting needs of the key stakeholder groups.

This process may need to be repeated if the original conditions under which the assessment
tool were developed have been altered such as the:
Target group;
Unit(s) of Competency and/or learning outcomes;
Context (e.g. location, technology);
Purpose of the assessment;
Reporting requirements of the key stakeholder groups; and/or
Legislative/regulatory changes.

A risk assessment will help determine whether it is necessary to undertake all three
processes (i.e. panelling, piloting and trialling) for ensuring the quality of the assessment tool
prior to use. If there is a high likelihood of unexpected and/or unfortunate consequences of
making incorrect assessment judgements (in terms of safety, costs, equity etc), then it may be
necessary to undertake all three processes. When the risks have been assessed as minimal,
then it may only be necessary to undertake a panelling exercise with one’s colleagues who
are either subject matter experts and/or assessment experts.

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 19

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

Appendix

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 20

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

A.1 ASSESSMENT TOOL: SELF ASSESSMENT

The following self-assessment is useful for the assessor when reviewing the administration, scoring, recording and
reporting components of an assessment tool.

Check to see that the tool has the following information documented to enable another
assessor to implement the tool in a consistent manner.

Major component Type of information

The Context  The purpose of assessment (e.g. formative, summative)
 Target group (including a description of any background
characteristics that may impact on performance)
 Unit(s) of Competency
 Selected methods
 Intended uses of the outcomes

Competency Mapping  Mapping of key components of task to Unit(s) of Competency

(see Template A.2)

Information to candidate  The nature of the task to be performed (how). This component
outlines the information to be provided to the candidate which
may include:
 Standard instructions on what the assessor has to say or do to
get the candidate to perform the task in a consistent manner
(e.g. a listing of questions to be asked by the assessor).
 Required materials and equipment.
 Any reasonable adjustments allowed to the standard procedures
 Level of assistance permitted (if any)
 Ordering of the task(s)

Evidence from candidate  Describe the response format – i.e. how will the candidate
respond to the task (e.g. oral response, written response,
creating a product and/or performance demonstration)

Decision making rules  Instructions for making Competent/Not Yet Competent decisions
(i.e. the evidence criteria)
 Scoring rules if grades and/or marks are to be reported (if
applicable)
 Decision making rules for handling multiple sources of evidence
across different methods and/or tasks
 Decision making rules for determining authenticity, currency and
sufficiency of evidence.
Range and conditions  Location (where)
 Time restrictions (when)
 Any specific assessor qualifications and/or training required to
administer the tool.
Materials/resources required  Resources required by candidate
 Resources required by the assessor to administer the tool
Assessor intervention  Type and amount of intervention and/or support permitted

Reasonable adjustments  Justification that the alternative procedures for collecting

candidate evidence do not impact on the standard expected by
the workplace, as expressed by the relevant Unit(s) of
Competency.

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 21

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

Major component Type of information

Evidence of validity  The assessment tasks are based on or reflect work-based
contexts and situations (i.e. face validity)
 The tool, as a whole, represents the full-range of skills and
knowledge specified within the Unit(s) of Competency (i.e.
content validity)
 The tool has been designed to assess a variety of evidence over
time and contexts (i.e. predictive validity)
 The boundaries and limitations of the tool in accordance with the
purpose and context for the assessment (i.e. consequential
validity)
 The tool has been designed to minimise the influence of
extraneous factors (i.e. factors that are not related to the unit of
competency) on candidate performance (i.e. construct validity)
 The tool has been designed to adhere to the literacy and
numeracy requirements of the Unit(s) of Competency (i.e.
construct validity)

Evidence of reliability  There is clear documentation of the required training, experience

and/or qualifications of assessors to administer the tool (i.e.
inter-rater reliability)
 The tool provides model responses and/or examples of
performance at varying levels (e.g. competent/not yet
competent) to guide assessors in their decision making (i.e. inter
and intra-rater reliability)
 There is clear instructions on how to synthesis multiple sources
of evidence to make overall judgement of performance (i.e. inter-
rater reliability)
 If marks or grades are to be reported, there are clear procedures
for scoring performance (e.g. marking guidelines, scoring rules
and/or grading criteria) (i.e. inter-rater reliability)

Recording Requirements  The type of information to be recorded

 How it is to be recorded and stored, including duration

Reporting requirements  What will be reported and to whom?

 What are the stakes and consequences of the assessment
outcomes?
Supplementary information  Any other information that will assist the assessor in
administering and judging the performance of the candidate

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 22

A.2 ASSESSMENT TOOL: COMPETENCY MAPPING

This form is to be completed by the assessor to demonstrate the content validity of his/her assessment tool. This should be attached to the assessment tool for validation purposes. Note that
multiple copies may need to be produced for each task within an assessment tool.

Component of Unit(s) of Competency

Step Component of Task Elements/Performance Required Skill and Range Statements Evidence Guide
Criteria Knowledge
1

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 23

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

Glossary of Terms
Accuracy of evidence The extent to which the evidence gathered is free from error. If error is present, the
assessor needs to determine whether the amount is tolerable.

Analytical Rubric An analytical rubric looks at specific aspects of the performance assessment. Each
critical aspect of the performance is judged independently and separate judgements are
obtained for each aspect in addition to an overall judgement.

Assessment quality Processes that could be used to help achieve comparability of standards.
Typically, there are three major components to quality management of
management.
assessments: quality assurance, quality control and quality review.

Assessment tool An assessment tool includes the following components: the context and conditions
for the assessment, the tasks to be administered to the candidate, an outline of the
evidence to be gathered from the candidate and the evidence criteria used to
judge the quality of performance (i.e. the assessment decision making rules). It
also includes the administration, recording and reporting requirements.

Assessor In this Guide, an assessor means an individual or organisation responsible for the
assessment of Units of Competency in accordance with the Australian Quality Training
Framework.

Authenticity One of the rules of evidence. To accept evidence as authentic, an assessor must be
assured that the evidence presented for assessment is the candidate’s own work.

Behaviourally Anchored Rating Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) are similar to rating scales (e.g.
1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Agree, 3=Disagree and 4=Strongly Disagree) but instead
Scales (BARS)
of numerical labels, each point on the rating scale has a behavioural description of
what that scale point means (e.g 1=the technical terms validity and reliability are
stated, 2= strategies for enhancing the content validity and inter-rater reliability
have been built into the design of the tool, 3= evidence of how the tool has been
designed to satisfy different forms of validity and reliability has been provided etc).
They are typically constructed by identifying examples of the types of activities or
behaviour typically performed by individuals with varying levels of expertise. Each
behaviour/activity is then ordered in terms of increasing proficiency and linked to a
point on a rating scale, with typically no more than five points on the scale.

Benchmark Benchmarks are a point of reference used to clarify standards in assessment. They are
agreed good examples of particular levels of achievement which arise from the
moderation process. Benchmarks help clarify the standards expected within the
qualification, and illustrate how they can be demonstrated and assessed. They can also
identify new ways of demonstrating the competency.

Comparability of standards Comparability of standards are said to be achieved when the performance levels
expected (e.g. competent/not yet competent decisions) for a unit (or cluster of units) of
competency are similar between assessors assessing the same unit(s) in a given RTO
and between assessors assessing the same unit(s) across RTOs.

Competency based Competency based assessment is a purposeful process of systematically

gathering, interpreting, recording and communicating to stakeholders, information
Assessment on candidate performance against industry competency standards and/or learning
outcomes.

Concurrent validity A form of criterion validity which is concerned with comparability and consistency of a
candidate’s assessment outcomes with other related measures of competency. For
example, evidence of high levels of performance on one task should be consistent with
high levels of performance on a related task. This is the transfer of learning.

Consensus Meetings Typically consensus meetings involve assessors reviewing their own and their
colleagues’ assessment tools and outcomes as part of a group. It can occur within
and/or across organisations. It is typically based on agreement within a group on
the appropriateness of the assessment tools and assessor judgements for a
particular unit(s) of competency.

Consequential validity Concerned with the social and moral implications of the value-laden assumptions that are
inherent in the use of a specific task, and its interpretation in a specific, local context.

Consistency of evidence The evidence gathered needs to be evaluated for its consistency with other assessments
of the candidate’s performance, including the candidate’s usual performance levels.

Construct validity The extent to which certain explanatory concepts or constructs account for the

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 24

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

performance on a task. It is concerned with the degree to which the evidence collected
can be used to infer competence in the intended area, without being influenced by other
non-related factors (eg literacy levels).

Content validity The match between the required knowledge and skills specified in the competency
standards and the assessment tool’s capacity to collect such evidence.

Continuous Improvement A planned and ongoing process that enables an RTO to systematically review and
improve its policies, procedures, services or products to generate better outcomes
for clients and to meet changing needs. It allows the RTO to constantly review its
performance against the AQTF 2007 Essential Standards for Registration and to
plan ongoing improvements. Continuous improvement involves collecting,
analysing and acting on relevant information from clients and other interested
parties, including the RTO’s staff.

Criterion referencing A means of interpreting candidate performance by making comparisons directly

against pre-established criteria that have been ordered along a developmental
continuum of proficiency.

Currency One of the rules of evidence. In assessment, currency relates to the age of the
evidence presented by the candidate to demonstrate that they are still competent.
Competency requires demonstration of current performance, so the evidence must
be from either the present or the very recent past.

Decision making rules The rules to be used to make judgements as to whether competency has been achieved
(note that if grades or scores are also to be reported, the scoring rules should outline how
performance is to be scored). Such rules should be specified for each assessment tool.
There should also be rules for synthesising multiple sources of evidence to make overall
judgements of performance.

De-identified samples This is a reversible process in which identifiers are removed and replaced by a code prior
to the validation/moderation meeting. At the completion of the meeting, the codes can be
used to link back to the original identifiers and identify the individual to whom the sample
of evidence relates.

Face validity The extent to which the assessment tasks reflect real work-based activities.

Fairness One of the principles of assessment. Fairness in assessment requires consideration of

the individual candidate’s needs and characteristics, and any reasonable adjustments
that need to be applied to take account of them. It requires clear communication between
the assessor and the candidate to ensure that the candidate is fully informed about,
understands and is able to participate in, the assessment process, and agrees that the
process is appropriate. It also includes an opportunity for the person being assessed to
challenge the result of the assessment and to be reassessed if necessary.

Flexibility One of the principles of assessment. To be flexible, assessment should reflect the
candidate’s needs; provide for recognition of competencies no matter how, where
or when they have been acquired; draw on a range of methods appropriate to the
context, competency and the candidate; and support continuous competency
development.

Holistic rubric A holistic rubric requires the assessor to consider the quality of evidence produced for
each competency or learning area. The evidence produced for each competency is
balanced to yield a single determination or classification (i.e. competent or not yet
competent) of the overall quality of the evidence produced by the candidate.

Internal consistency A type of reliability which is concerned with how well the items of tasks act together to
elicit a consistent type of response, usually on a test.

Inter-rater reliability A type of reliability which is concerned with determining the consistency of judgement
across different assessors using the same assessment task and procedure.

Intra-rater reliability A type of reliability which is concerned with determining the consistency of assessment
judgements made by the same assessor. That is, the consistency of judgements across
time and location, and using the same assessment task administered by the same
assessor.

Moderation Moderation is the process of bringing assessment judgements and standards into
alignment. It is a process that ensures the same standards are applied to all assessment
results within the same Unit(s) of Competency. It is an active process in the sense that
adjustments to assessor judgements are made to overcome differences in the difficulty of

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 25

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

the tool and/or the severity of judgements.

Moderator In this Guide moderator means a person responsible for carrying out moderation
processes. A moderator may be external or internal to the organisation.

Panelling of assessment tools A quality assurance process for checking the relevance and clarity of the tool prior to use
with other colleagues (i.e. who have expertise within the Units of Competency and/or
assessment tool development). This may involve examining whether the content of the
tool is correct and relevant to industry, the unit(s) f; the instructions are clear for
candidates and assessors and that there is not potential bias within the design of the tool.

Parallel forms of reliability A type of reliability which is concerned with determining the equivalence of two alternative
forms of a task.

Piloting of assessment tools A quality assurance process for checking the appropriateness of the tool with
representatives from the target group This may involve administering the tool with a small
number of individuals (who are representative of the target group) and gathering feedback
on both their performance and perceptions of the task. Piloting can help determine the
appropriateness of the amount of time to complete the task, the clarity of the instructions,
the task demands (i.e. whether it is too difficult or easy to perform) and its perceived
relevance to the workplace.
Predictive validity A form of criterion validity concerned with the ability of the assessment outcomes to
accurately predict the future performance of the candidate.

Principles of assessment To ensure quality outcomes, assessments should be:

 Fair
 Flexible
 Valid
 Reliable
 Sufficient.

Quality assurance Concerned with establishing appropriate circumstances for assessment to take place. It is
an input approach to assessment quality management.

Quality control Concerned with monitoring, and where necessary, making adjustments to decisions
made by assessors prior to the finalisation of assessment results/outcomes. It is referred
to as an active approach to assessment quality management.

Quality review Concerned with the review of the assessment tools, procedure and outcomes to make
improvements for future use. It is referred to as a retrospective approach to assessment
quality management.

Reasonable adjustments Adjustments that can be made to the way in which evidence of candidate performance
can be collected. Whilst reasonable adjustments can be made in terms of the way in
which evidence of performance is gathered, the evidence criteria for making
competent/not yet competent decisions [and/or awarding grades] should not be altered in
any way. That is, the standards expected should be the same irrespective of the group
and/or individual being assessed, otherwise comparability of standards will be
compromised.

Reliability One of the principles of assessment. There are five types of reliability: internal
consistency, parallel forms, split-half, inter-rater and intra rater. In general, reliability is an
estimate of how accurate or precise the task is as a measurement instrument. Reliability
is concerned with how much error is included in the evidence.

Risk Assessment Concerned with gauging the likelihood of unexpected and/or unfortunate
consequences. For example, determining the level of risk (e.g. in terms of safety,
costs, equity etc) of assessing someone as competent when in actual fact they are
not yet competent, and or vice versa.
Risk Indicators The potential factors that may increase the risk associated with the assessment.
These factors should be considered when selecting a representative sample for
validation and/or moderation. Risk factors may include safety (eg potential danger
to clients from an incorrect judgement), equity (eg. outcomes impacting on highly
competitive selection procedures), human capacity (eg experience and expertise
of assessors) etc.

Rubrics They are formally defined as scoring guides, consisting of specific pre-established
performance indicators, used in judging the quality of candidate work on
performance assessments. They tend to be designed using behaviourally anchored
rating scales in which each point on the rating scale is accompanied by a
description of increasing levels of proficiency along a developmental continuum of
competence.

Rules of evidence These are closely related to the principles of assessment and provide guidance on
the collection of evidence to ensure that it is valid, sufficient, authentic and current.

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 26

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

Sampling Sampling is the process of selecting material to use in validation and/or moderation.

Split half reliability Type of reliability which is concerned with the internal consistency of a test, where the
candidate sits the one test, which is subsequently split into two tests during the scoring
process.

Stakeholders Individuals or organisations affected by, or who may influence, the assessment outcomes.
These may include candidates, assessors, employers, other RTOs etc. Each stakeholder
group will have their own reporting needs in relation to the outcomes of the assessment.

Standard Referenced It is a subset of criterion referencing which requires the development and use of scoring
rubrics that are expressed in the form of ordered, transparent descriptions of quality
Frameworks performance that are specific to the unit(s) of competency; underpinned by a theory of
learning; and are hierarchical and sequential. Subject matter experts unpack the unit(s) of
competency to develop the frameworks where levels of performance are defined along a
developmental continuum of increasing proficiency and used for interpretative purposes
to infer a competency decision. The developmental continuum describes the typical
patterns of skills and knowledge displayed by individuals as they progress from novice to
expert in a specific area. Along this developmental continuum, a series of cut-points can
be made for determining grades (e.g. A, B, C or D etc) as well as the cut-point for making
competent/not yet competent decisions.

Sufficiency One of the principles of assessment and also one of the rules of evidence. Sufficiency
relates to the quality and quantity of evidence assessed. It requires collection of enough
appropriate evidence to ensure that all aspects of competency have been satisfied and
that competency can be demonstrated repeatedly. Supplementary sources of evidence
may be necessary. The specific evidence requirements of each Unit of Competency
provide advice on sufficiency.

Target group This refers to the group of individuals that the assessment tool has been designed
for. The description of the target group could include any background
characteristics of the group (such as literacy and numeracy) that may assist other
assessors to determine whether the tool could be applied to other similar groups of
individuals.

Trialling of assessment tools A quality assurance process for checking that the assessment tool will produce
valid and reliable evidence to satisfy the purpose of the assessment and the
reporting needs of the key stakeholder groups. A trial is often referred to as a
‘dress rehearsal’ in which the tool is administered to a group of individuals who are
representative of the target group. The information gathered from the trial can be
used to determine the cost-effectiveness, fairness, flexibility, validity and reliability
of the assessment prior to use.

Thresholds The cut point between varying levels of achievement. For example, the point in
which performance crosses over from a ‘competent’ performance to a ‘not yet
competent’ performance.

Unit of Competency Specification of industry knowledge and skill and the application of that knowledge and
skill to the standard of performance expected in the workplace.

Validation Validation is a quality review process. It involves checking that the assessment
tool3 produced valid, reliable, sufficient, current and authentic evidence to enable
reasonable judgements to be made as to whether the requirements of the relevant
aspects of the Training Package or accredited course had been met. It includes
reviewing and making recommendations for future improvements to the
assessment tool, process and/or outcomes.

Validator In this Guide a validator refers to a member of the validation panel who is
responsible for carrying out validation processes. The validator may be internal or
external to the organisation.

Validity One of the principles of assessment. There are five major types of validity: face,
content, criterion (i.e. predictive and concurrent), construct and consequential. In

3
An assessment tool includes the following components: the context and conditions for the assessment, the tasks to
be administered to the candidate, an outline of the evidence to be gathered from the candidate and the criteria used
for judging the quality of performance (i.e. the assessment decision making rules). It also includes the administration,
recording and reporting requirements.

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 27

NQC | Guide for developinG assessment tools

general, validity is concerned with the appropriateness of the inferences, use and
consequences that result from the assessment. In simple terms, it is concerned
with the extent to which an assessment decision about a candidate (e.g.
competent/not yet competent, a grade and/or a mark), based on the evidence of
performance by the candidate, is justified. It requires determining conditions that
weaken the truthfulness of the decision, exploring alternative explanations for good
or poor performance, and feeding them back into the assessment process to
reduce errors when making inferences about competence. Unlike reliability, validity
is not simply a property of the assessment tool. As such, an assessment tool
designed for a particular purpose and target group may not necessarily lead to valid
interpretations of performance and assessment decisions if the tool was used for a
different purpose and/or target group.

GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT TOOLS PAGE 28