Assessor and verifier articles

This is one of a series of articles available at www.nvqweb.com that aim to develop understanding of NVQs and their assessment.
NVQs are national qualifications, however the way they are written and assessed can lead to differences between NVQ assessors. Partly this flexibility supports the ability of assessors and centres to meet the individual needs of candidates. However it can also result in poor and unfair interpretation and practice.

For this reason verifiers and assessors are expected to work within centre systems that standardise assessment decisions across assessors. This article looks at the need for this standardisation and practical ways in which verifiers and assessors can support this process.

The value of standardisation

The criteria that make up an NVQ unit are written in a way that is open to a wide range of interpretation both in meaning and depth of coverage. There can also be different approaches to assessment practice.

These differences can be unfair to candidates. It can result in candidates being assessed at different levels, taking longer to complete their programme and having to produce different amounts of evidence.

It can also increase the risk of bias in judgements between people. Whilst this may be unintentional this can happen when an assessor interprets the standards differently between candidates. For example using the variation in the standards to apply stricter requirements for a candidate that they assume is not competent. This can also happen at verification where one assessor's unit is okayed and then another similar unit by a different assessor is ripped to shreds.

The effect of differences in NVQ assessment can also contribute to a negative perception of the awards. Where people believe that standards appear inconsistent this devalues the standing of the qualification.

As well as reducing these risks standardisation activities are also valuable in that they support the sharing of good practice across a centre.

Standardising interpretation

Occupational standards are often written in a way that can be interpreted in different ways. Some would say that this is because they are sometimes badly written, however this is not always the reason; other factors include:

* Units have to be written in a way that can be used across a wide variety of very different workplace settings.
* NVQ in Care is a relatively new qualification in an area that in the past has had no history of accepted practice and shared knowledge base.
* Practice and knowledge has been taken from a wide range of existing disciplines. This has implications in terms of language and relevance.
* Care is a complex job that has a need for a high level of knowledge and ability to deal with different situations.
* Judgements that have to be made are subjective.
* To write more concise criteria would be likely to mean that the number of individual criteria would increase significantly.

For these reasons even with the improvements with each revision of the standards there will still be the need for interpretation.

Standardising assessment practice

As well as standardisation across the content of the NVQ there can also be a wide variation in assessor practice. This can be of real benefit as this allows verifier's and assessor's to address individual need. However this can also result in differences in the way people are assessed. Contributing factors can include:

* Differences in assessment strategies between NVQ Assessment Centres.
* There are wide variations in documentation used.
* Some differences are attributable to poor training and understanding of the principles of assessment.
* Poor practice in verification has allowed assessors to work unsupported.
* Assessors and verifiers are often isolated and have little contact with others.
* Some centres are spread across different locations and regions and can have different people leading the assessment process across the organisation.
* At times there is a variation in the guidance given by internal and external verifiers to different centres.

Regulation & Guidance

Standardisation in NVQ is not an optional extra. Regulation, inspection and guidance is in place to ensure it is integral to verifier and assessor practice.

NVQ Code of Practice (QCA 2006) para 36: "Awarding bodies must require centres to operate explicit and documented internal verification procedures to ensure:

* the accuracy and consistency of assessment decisions between assessors operating within the centre.
* That assessors are consistent in their interpretation and application of the national occupational standards contained with the award."

Joint awarding body guidance on Internal verification of NVQs (Dfes): "The third strand to verifying assessment is to standardise assessment judgements"

The Assessors and Verifier award, A & V Units (EMPNTO): Standardisation is a requirement within the occupational standards for assessors and verifiers. In the recent rewrite of these standards the need for assessors to take responsibility for this was strengthened:

"Contribute to standardisation arrangements so that your decisions can be in line with others."

Joint Awarding Body and Sector Skills Council Forum: In Care this forum of meets at regular times to discuss standardisation issues across the sector. Information from this source is normally distributed through the awarding bodies.

Achieving standardisation within a centre

Traditionally centres have focused on standardisation through regular assessor meetings. Whist this is an important part of the process it does have its weaknesses. Other activities that can also contribute include feedback from verification of units and practice, assessor support and development, sample units and the use of lead verification.

Assessor & verifier meetings: These can indeed be a very effective means of standardisation for many centres. Activities such as discussing units, comparing portfolios, updating, sharing examples of good practice will all allow assessors to agree on interpretation and practice. As a routine it is good practice to request consent from candidates that other centre staff can view their work.

The following examples of suggested good practice come from the 'joint awarding body guidance on internal verification' (Dfes) and provide ideas for activities for standardisation exercises.

Example A
Select a "problem" unit from a qualification, which many of the team assess and ask each to bring along two examples of completed units they have signed off. The units are then passed around the group and each Assessor completes an assessment feedback form as if they are assessing a unit and providing feedback to a candidate. Discussion follows. Sheets are collected and evaluated by the Internal Verifier and feedback given to individual Assessors, confidentially, at a later date.

Example B
Concentrate at one session on particular types/sources of evidence and how they are assessed, including the recording of the assessment. For example, each Assessor could bring a number of witness testimonies from their candidates', or examine observation records.The group then share constructive criticism about items tabled (which may be made anonymous for the purpose of the exercise).

Example C
If, on the introduction of new standards, there is a unit(s) in the new qualification which appears to be similar to a unit(s) from the old standards, take the evidence brought forward for the old unit by a number of candidates. As a team, then evaluate the evidence against the new standards. Aim to highlight the different requirements between old and new standards.

Example D
Enable Assessors to share with colleagues an "alternative" form of evidence, which most have not encountered or are unfamiliar with, by presenting the evidence to the team and forming a consensus view of its acceptability or otherwise against the standards.

However whilst these meetings can be very effective it can be a mistake to reply solely on this method. The most common drawback is the potential difficulty in staff being able to attend these meetings. Staff who do attend may not always feel confident to ask questions or join in discussion. The time available may not always be sufficient to cover all of the necessary areas.

To encourage attendance many centres will have a contract or agreement with their assessors that includes the requirement to attend a certain number of meetings per year. Where are employer is involved there can be a requirement that staff have to be released for such meetings.

Meetings are important but effective standardisation within a centre needs to be much more than this.

Lead verification: Strong leadership is important aspect of standardisation. One way of supporting this is to allow one person to 'lead' practice and interpretation for a particular occupational area. This can avoid the situation where several people with different ideas give conflicting guidance. It can also help communication by providing clear accountability.

In some centres a central quality manager may provide this leadership for different occupational areas. Whilst this can provide uniformity across the centre this can overlook specific needs of different areas. One example here is a centre that provided management awards. When they started up care they did not understand why assessors needed to do so many observations.

Of course ownership is important, especially when introducing change in practice, and a strong leader needs to listen and allow their team to contribute to agreement on standardisation. However standardisation purely by consensus can at times have its drawbacks. For example one centre that, in order to meet everyone's needs and ideas, ended up with 15 individual documents for the assessor's to complete.

Feedback from internal verification: A very strong source of standardisation is effective feedback from internal verification of units and observation of practice from a team of verifiers working closely together.

Where verification is carried out at a regular interval and across appropriate units and assessment methods, the verifier is able to pick up on and feedback information on areas of standardisation.

Some assessors requires more support than others with standardising their assessment decisions. There are also assessment methods and NVQ units that require closer attention. This is where the sampling strategy can be used to great effect by focusing on this areas.

Feedback from verification should be timely and ongoing. If there is an issue with standardisation the worst scenario is where it is not picked up until the assessor has signed off lots of units.

Assessor support and development: Training and support of assessors is another activity that can address issues of interpretation and practice.

Effective induction for all new assessors, including those that are qualified, can include explanation of the assessment policies on interpretation and practice. Examples of portfolios and completed documentation will make it a lot easier for new assessors to pick up on centre practices.

A proactive approach to identifying development needs and updating will ensure uniformity across assessors.

Centre communication
A cornerstone of effective standardisation is good communication between the centre and its assessors. This include both face to face and written information:

* Minutes of meetings.
* Centre Newsletters.
* Changes to centre policy and practice.
* Copies of awarding body and scheme guidance.
* Verbal and written feedback from verification.
* Intranet.
* Examples of 'exemplar' recording of assessment decisions.

It is important to ask the question; are the right people actually receiving the information or is it ending up on a desk unread?

It is worth considering introducing a feedback loop that allows the centre to confirm that people have received necessary information about standardisation. This may be a record of a meeting with an assessor, or a slip to be returned to confirm that written information has been received. This is an area where administration support can be of real benefit.

The potential of using intranet and internet resources for standardisation is another consideration.

Our own web sites www.nvqweb.com and www.avcare.org.uk show how assessors and verifiers can make use of online support and networking. The advantage of this is that people can access support at a time and place to suit themselves. There is also a permanent record of questions asked and information that can be browsed. Our own service has the added benefit in that it allows standardisation across a much larger number of people from different centres and awarding bodies.

In conclusion

Differences in interpretation and practice can lead to candidates being disadvantaged by unfair and biased assessment. For this reason regulation and guidance around NVQ makes standardisation an integral part of the assessor and verifier role.

Ensuring effective standardisation should be central to the way we work as assessors and verifiers both for the benefit of our candidates and for the reputation of NVQ.

Copyright TMS NVQ Support Services 2008. All materials published within www.nvqweb.com, unless stated otherwise, are protected by international trademark and copyright laws and must only be used for personal, non-commercial purposes only. NVQweb PLUS Coordinator and Corporate members have permission to use and edit NVQweb materials for use within their own organisation.

This is one of a series of articles available at www.nvqweb.com that aim to develop understanding of NVQs and their assessment.

In this NVQ Assess I am taking a look at the holistic approach to Direct Observation. The following discussion aims to discuss my own experiences of this method of collecting evidence.

Please bear in mind that this may be different to the consensus in your own centre. If in doubt ask your verifier or co-ordinator. Another area of clarification is that my own interpretation of the term 'direct observation' is that this only refers to observation by an NVQ Assessor of their candidate carrying out their normal work activities.

A non-holistic approach

You will probably be aware that NVQ units are based on National Occupational Standards (NOS). The NOS break down a person's job into individual competencies and knowledge criteria. The terms unit, element, performance criteria and knowledge specification come from this process. In this way a person's ability to perform as a care worker is broken down into thousands of competencies.

Because of the way the NOS breaks down the person's job, when people are assessed there has been a tendency to assess the NVQ in the same way. Take the unit HSC223 (Contribute to moving and handling individuals level 2) . An assessor and candidate may on one day look at preparing a client to be moved for element 2.

This approach has been criticised. It fragments the process of assessment. It adds considerably to the amount of paperwork and time needed to prove someone's competence. Imagine a driving test where you had to keep stopping and starting every time you completed each turn. At its worst; I have seen candidates actually assessed one criteria at a time with each single unit needing a Level Arch File to itself!

An holistic approach

In an holistic assessment, the planning and collection of evidence through direct observation uses a whole award approach. For example I may agree a plan with the candidate that includes me working with them across part of a morning shift. In this time I may expect to observe them assisting patients with; washing and dressing, breakfast, mobilising, communication, maintaining health and safety, promoting equality etc. (Units 21, 22, 24, 218, 223). During this 'evidence rich' observation I will be able to collect evidence that proves their competence across many of the individual criteria within each unit.

This holistic approach is sometime refered to an 'activity based' assessment as it is centred on work activities rather than NVQ units.

Recording of the observation needs to provide the verifier sufficient information for them to understand how assessment decisions were made. In my opinion the best way of covering this is to write around the elements and scope and always to note things that happened that might be unusual. I will reference the observation record to all of the units/elements/scope/performance criteria that I observed. Verifiers can get a bit jumpy when they see an observation on one topic that covers a lot of unrelated performance criteria!

Holistic Direct Observation is being encouraged because it is seen as a more accurate assessment of how people do their job because it is more natural to observe someone doing a complete job rather than stopping and starting. It is also seen as a part solution to some of the problems associated with slow achievement as it can allow very efficient collection of evidence. In one observation, on a good day, you could cover every unit in an whole award.

Pitfalls of Holistic Observation

There are however pitfalls to an holistic approach so there is still the need to be cautious. One verifier I know of who trained his assessors to assess holistically had the remarkable figures of 100% dropout on his programme! This happened because the assessors were new and the added complexity of working across many units was the straw that broke the camels back.

Personally I always allow assessors to start off assessing at unit level until they start getting to know the units, usually this is when they have finished their first complete award. Another approach to support the novice assessor by allowing them to work alongside a qualified assessor. This way the candidate is not slowed down whist the new assessor is learning and the assessor can learn directly from the experience assessor.

Another risk is that without strong verification the holistic approach can be abused. For example there are examples of training providers using this approach to justify certification of an NVQ that has only one direct observation for the whole award.

There is also a risk that the candidate does not know what they have been assessed on, especially when vast tracts of the units are covered in single observations. It is not possible for the candidate to keep up with what is being assessed! With the old step-by-step approach it was a lot easier for the candidate to make sense of a unit at a time.

In conclusion

For experienced assessors an holistic approach can be mind blowing in its efficiency and speed through a qualification. It can significantly reduce the amount of writing so more time can be spent on development and assessment. For new assessors and perhaps candidates however this may not always be the right approach and a unit by unit or a combination of both may be a better choice. What do you think? Please feel free to use the message boards to discuss this topic.

Copyright TMS NVQ Support Services 2008. All materials published within www.nvqweb.com, unless stated otherwise, are protected by international trademark and copyright laws and must only be used for personal, non-commercial purposes only. NVQweb PLUS Coordinator and Corporate members have permission to use and edit NVQweb materials for use within their own organisation.

This is one of a series of articles available at www.nvqweb.com that aim to develop understanding of NVQs and their assessment.

Assessment of knowledge is an important aspect of an Assessor’s role. This article explores the theory of different types of knowledge found within National Occupational Standards (NOS) and how these relate to assessment practice.

Exploring knowledge

A person who is considered competent at their job is someone who has the ability to perform the tasks and roles required to the expected standard. As well as demonstrating skills and attitudes this also requires the person to apply and show understanding of the knowledge that is required to support their performance...

Understanding the type and nature of the knowledge being assessed can make assessing knowledge much easier to plan and judge. The following descriptions aim to provide a deeper understanding of the assessment of knowledge within workbased assessment. Whilst some of the following is based on research, there is also a high level of personal interpretation and terms used, which is based on personal experience.

• Propositional or declarative knowledge is about ‘knowing what’. This may include data, facts, and descriptive information. Often possession of this type of knowledge is hidden, it is difficult to assess or infer through performance alone. This may suggest that the use of assessment methods such as questioning, assignment or professional discussion, are more valid. Alternative forms include using mind mapping.
• Procedural knowledge is about ‘knowing how’. This may be related to possession of knowledge about technique and process of skills and tasks. This can often be inferred through someone performance using methods such as observation, produce of work and candidate accounts. However as the level of NVQ rises and tasks become more complex the knowledge supporting cognitive skills such as decision-making and problem solving becomes harder to infer. This is where professional discussion can be particularly useful. Flow charts are a useful alternative way of providing evidence of procedural knowledge.
• Schematic knowledge is about ‘knowing why’. The reasons why actions are taken in the workplace may include knowledge of procedures, systems, policies, theories, legislation, theories, research and guidelines. Assessing that someone knows why they have performed an action is also not always easy to infer directly through performance. Questioning and professional discussion can be used. Personal or reflective accounts that include a rationale can also be an effective way of covering this although care should be taken as this approach is not suitable for all candidates.

It is not considered sufficient to hold knowledge without understanding. Understanding is difficult to define, perhaps one explanation is that it is about being able to link the 'what, how and why' described in the previous paragraphs and relate them to practice. Assessment of understanding should be at the level required by the person to support their performance and should therefore be appropriate to their job role and responsibilities. For example a person who is working under supervision may require a different understanding of health and safety to someone carrying out a similar role independently.

The following example illustrates how the knowing what, how and why can come together to show understanding.

Understanding the need for reporting in the event of an accident

• Knowing what - Falls, trips, manual handling injuries etc.
• Knowing how - Accidents should be reported using the accident book.
• Knowing why - Company policy, allow investigation and risk assessment, provide auditable record in case of liability, duty of care, legal requirement under Health and Safety at Work Act and RIDDOR.

Application of knowledge: Possessing knowledge is worthless unless it is used in practice. Assessment practice that only looks at evidence of knowledge in isolation from performance poses a high threat to the validity of assessment of competence. This can be seen where all of the knowledge evidence is collected through written questions or workbooks. Wherever possible evidence of knowledge must come from, or be supported by, assessment of application of knowledge through performance.

Underpinning knowledge. This term is now dated but is still occasionally used. This was used to refer to knowledge that is required to support performance.

Core knowledge is knowledge that is generic or common to different settings and across different parts of the job and NOS units or competences, for example knowledge about record keeping. Often this type of knowledge will be contained within a specific unit, however it is useful to remember that NOS units or competences have to be written to stand-alone and such knowledge may be embedded into each unit. An holistic or whole award approach to core knowledge will reduce unnecessary duplication.

Situated knowledge is knowledge that is relevant to a specific context, task or setting. For example knowledge around manual handling may be very different between a care worker who works in a hospital to someone who works in mental health. This is one of the reasons why knowledge criteria, that are written generically to cover different situations, are sometimes difficult to write and interpret and why a job profile or description is needed in a candidate portfolio. Knowledge in NOS should be assessed in the context of the individual persons job role and setting.

Contextualisation is about using language and meaning that is familiar to the person’s role and the everyday language used in their workplace. The generic nature of NOS units and the fact they are designed as assessment tools mean that - however well written they are - they are not always contextualised. The same can be true for learning materials that have not been specifically written around a candidate's workplace. This lack of contextualisation can provide a barrier to many candidates especially where knowledge is of an abstract (theoretical) rather than concrete (practical) nature. This can have implications when candidates are expected to work directly with the NOS/NVQ units. Part of a successful assessor’s skill is the ability to communicate with and assess their candidates within the context of the candidate's language and workplace.

Inferred knowledge is where it is obvious and explicit through someone’s performance that they have specific knowledge. For example if a person is observed carrying out a technical task following a step-by-step order, this could not happen by accident. Where knowledge can be implied the use of observation and other performance methods can avoid duplication. This will save unnecessary writing and further assessment. This is also an effective method for ensuring knowledge is being applied. However do be wary of assessment strategies that assess knowledge using purely inferred knowledge. Valid assessment is most likely when this is supported using other assessment methods such as questioning. The evidence method used should reflect the nature of individual knowledge criteria and whether it is asking what, how or why.

Truths, beliefs and knowledge. Our common understanding of what is appropriate or correct knowledge, is not always clear-cut and there can be differences between assessor expectations and interpretation. It is worth considering that knowledge is considered to be the meeting point between truths and beliefs and this can vary between individuals and workplace. Keeping abreast of best practice, research and continuing development can reduce this effect. This is also one of the reasons why assessor standardisation is so important.

Tacit knowledge is knowledge that is difficult to explain or communicate but is nether less important to the job. It may even be intuitive. The common example used is how we recognise a friends face. Within the workplace this is often highly cultural or situated, for example in the values shared within a team.

Knowledge specification. Within National Occupational Standards, skills and attitudes are typically described under performance criteria and knowledge under the section entitled knowledge specification. Whilst listed under separate headings, when it comes to assessment performance and knowledge are closely related. For assessment to be fair and reliable it is important to assess strictly to the written knowledge specification and within the context of the persons job role.

Knowledge requirements. Within NVQ units there is a section headed evidence requirements. This section will explain the assessment methods required or recommended for each unit. Unlike the actual standards these are not written by the standard setting body (normally the relevant Sector Skills Council) or part of the actual NOS. Instead these are written by each individual awarding body. Sometimes awarding bodies will collaborate to produce the same evidence requirements, however this may not always be the case and it is therefore essential to only use the evidence requirements provide by your own awarding body. Awarding bodies will develop evidence requirement in line with the assessment strategy written by the standard setting body.

Plagerism. This is where evidence presented by a candidate is not their own work and therefore does not prove that person's knowledge or understanding. This can happen accidently, for example within group work but can also be deliberate. Assessor's need to ensure that candidates are aware of how to avoid this and also make sufficient checks to ensure that assessment is authentic. The following article provides more information on this topic:
http://nvqweb.com/node/1294

Accreditation of prior learning and achievement: Prior to starting their programme, candidates will often have weath of existing knowledge already in place. Accreditation of prior learning and achievement can be used to assess this without the need for producing new evidence. This is particularly significant with regard to evidence of knowledge and should be the starting point for assessment planning. Each assessment centre will have a policy on how evidence of prior learning can be used. For more on this topic go here:
http://nvqweb.com/avcare/apl

Conclusion

Reading this article may have been simply revision or may have introduced some new ideas for the assessment of knowledge. Registered users are welcome to discuss this topic further by posting a reply. You can also rate this article using the poll option.

Copyright TMS NVQ Support Services 2008. All materials published within www.nvqweb.com, unless stated otherwise, are protected by international trademark and copyright laws and must only be used for personal, non-commercial purposes only. NVQweb PLUS Coordinator and Corporate members have permission to use and edit NVQweb materials for use within their own organisation.

This is one of a series of articles available at www.nvqweb.com that aim to develop understanding of NVQs and their assessment.

The role of the expert witness in specialised units

The role of expert witness is introduced in the assessment stategies for both the 'Health and Social Care' and Health' NVQ Awards. "Where there is no NVQ Assessor with occupational competence for specialist units an ‘Expert Witness' is now able to contribute evidence for such units".

Thus the primary intention of the role expert witness is to provide the key source of assessment of competence for specialist units. This is specifically for units where the assessor does not hold occupational competence.

It is not a requirement that centres have to use expert witness. It is only necessary where it is needed to assess a unit where an occupationally competence assessor is not available.

As an example take a senior care assistant working within a care home. Their NVQ assessor is able to assess the core units plus units related to personal care and care planning. However this candidate also wishes to take a unit on administering medication, which is not part of their NVQ assessor's competence. In this case a pharmacist or registered nurse who is already involved in evaluating staff in this role, could be given the role of expert witness to contribute evidence of assessment for this unit. The NVQ assessor would then be able to use this evidence, perhaps alongside other evidence collected, in order to make their own final judgement on the candidate's competence for this unit.

As well as providing evidence the expert witness may also be a useful source of technical advice for the NVQ assessor.

The role of the expert witness evidence in other non-specialist and core units

Expert witness evidence cannot replace the evidence (including observation) normally required of the NVQ assessor for any units where the NVQ assessor is occupationally competence or for the core units. In health care settings where the candidate might only take 2 core units it is also a requirement that the assessor must also carry out the observation for at least 2 of the optional units.

This does not mean that it will be impossible to use evidence from the expert witness in other units. The point is that this evidence may only be used in addition to evidence required from the NVQ assessor. This gives it a similar standing to normal witness testimony where it may be valuable additional evidence for covering contingencies and for evidence of reliability.

Role differences between awarding bodies

There does appear to be a subtle difference in interpretation between Edexcel and City and Guilds in how expert witness evidence might be used.

C&G state: "The role of the expert witness is to provide testimony to the competence of candidates in meeting the national occupational standards identified in any given unit. This testimony must directly relate to candidate performance in the workplace that has been seen by the expert witness" (C&G 2005).

This can be contrasted with Edexcel who state: "It is best to avoid the term ‘expert witness testimony' and use instead ‘expert witness evidence', which may or may not be testimony" (Edexcel 2005). This might suggest that evidence from the expert witness can be more than just observation of performance and might for example include questioning and other sources of evidence.

Selection of Expert Witnesses

The selection criteria for the Expert Witness is laid down in the ‘assessment strategies' for the ‘Health and Social Care' and ‘Health' NVQ Awards. This states an expert witness must hold;

• a working knowledge of NOS for the competences on which their expertise is based
• current expertise and occupational competence i.e. within the last two years, either as a practitioner or manager, for the competences on which their expertise is based. This experience should be credible and clearly demonstrable through continuing learning and development. In due course the implementation of regulatory requirements may mean that expert witness will need to hold appropriate Care / Health qualifications.
• either any qualification in assessment of workplace performance, such as L20 from the Learning and Development suite, Support Competence Achieved in the Workplace, OR a professional work role which involves evaluating the everyday practice of staff.
   

Implications for Internal Verifiers and Assessment Centres

In some ways assessment centres will need to be treat expert witnesses in a similar way to assessors.

Internal verifier will need to select and carry out checks on the suitability of expert witness to ensure they meet the above requirements. These checks and judgements made will have to be documented in order to provide an audit trail for quality assurance purposes.

City and Guilds state that for managers/supervisors acting as expert witnesses a CV and job profile or job description is required. Peers acting as expert witnesses will also have to provide validated copies of certificates of work based assessment such as D32,33,A1,A2 or L20. If peer expert witnesses are working towards these qualifications this will need to be evidenced. Again there appears to be a different in requirements between awarding bodies. Edexcel do not appear to have been so prescriptive in their guidance and leaving it to centres to decide how to evidence that how an expert witness meets the required criteria.

Once identified Expert Witnesses will need to receive an induction to their role. This will need to include making them aware of the occupational standards for which they are contributing evidence and the centres requirements for recording evidence.

To meet the above requirements internal verifiers and centres may need to consider develop a policy, induction package and recording requirements for the role of expert witness.

In conclusion

In the past those in a position to provide expert evidence often did not always have the time or inclination to take on the full role of an assessor. The new role of expert witness will hopefully allow this expertise to be more effectively accessed. Together with the 'coordinating assessor' role it will be much easier to meet individual needs of candidates using a team approach to assessment.

Centre's will need to ensure policies and recording is in place to support and develop this role and to meet quality assurance requirements.

If you would like evidence of your personal development download the CPD quiz at the bottom of this page (CPD quiz).

Further reading and references

Skills for Care (2004) Health and Social Care NVQ/SVQ (Levels 2, 3 and 4)
Assessment Strategy

Skills for Health (2004) Health NVQ/SVQ Awards Level 2 and 3
Assessment Strategy

City & Guilds (2005) NVQ in Level 2. 3 and 4 Health and Social Care standards and assessment requirements.

City and Guilds (Jan 2005) Frequently Asked Questions The new Health and Social Care N/SVQs

Edexcel (2005) National Qualifications Framework - Edexcel Level 2, 3 & 4 NVQs in Health and Social Care. Automatic Approval Process and Frequently Asked Questions

Edexcel (2005) Sector guidance for centres - Levels 2, 3 and 4 NVQs within Health and Social Care - Issue 1 - February 2005

Copyright TMS NVQ Support Services 2008. All materials published within www.nvqweb.com, unless stated otherwise, are protected by international trademark and copyright laws and must only be used for personal, non-commercial purposes only. NVQweb PLUS Coordinator and Corporate members have permission to use and edit NVQweb materials for use within their own organisation.

This is one of a series of articles available at www.nvqweb.com that aim to develop understanding of NVQs and their assessment.

Effective internal verification is the foundation for successful NVQ provision. Carried out well it ensures the quality of certificates awarded and contributes to continuous development of centre practice and staff. This article aims to provide a personal reflection on some of the key aspects of effective verification practice.

Working within the framework of source regulation and guidance

Within the world of NVQ verification there has been a tendency for verifiers to issue assessment feedback and requirements without justification or reference to the source regulation and guidance.

The downside of this is that NVQ assessment becomes more about rules and myths rather than understanding of sound NVQ principles and process. In other words practice is based on rote rather than rationale. This makes it very hard for staff to develop their own understanding and confidence of NVQ assessment.

External and Internal Verifier feedback and guidance should be always be justified and if necessary accompanied by explanation and reference to source documentation. There should also be a clear distinction between personal preference and official guidance or regulatory requirements.

Source regulation and guidance

Following on from the necessity for verifiers to base feedback and guidance on source regulation and guidance perhaps it would be useful to highlight the key documents that all verifiers should be familiar with:

* 'NVQ Code of Practice'.
* 'Joint Awarding Body Guidance on Internal Verification' (often called JAB guidance).
* 'Awarding Body and Sector Skills Council guidance and updates
* 'Internal Verification of NVQ'
* 'External Verification of NVQ'
* The A and V units.
* The NVQ Standards and Assessment Strategies for all awards you are verifying.

Sampling is an art, not a science

Effective sampling can at times appear a mystery and many hours can be spent searching for the perfect solution, often without finding one. In reality sampling strategies have to take into account a wide range of different variables and factors, some of which are very hard to predict.

For this reason whist a formal strategy is important, it is not always possible to treat sampling as an exact science. There will be times where a more flexible approach, that relies on the verifiers own common sense, judgement and even intuition, is needed.

Verification is a two way process

Sometimes verifiers see verification feedback as being a one-way process where feedback is provided to the assessor through written or oral feedback – end of story.

However a much more effective approach is to use verifier feedback as an opportunity to hold a discussion with the assessor. This can include:
* Clarification of assessment decisions.
* Correction of minor errors found in the assessment. (This can often avoid returning units).
* Opportunity for development and standardisation.
* More tactful discussion of areas of development.

Using this approach sampling can be a key tool in assessor development.

Keep your finger on the pulse at all times.

Sufficient information must be available to ensure that the verifier is aware of progress and issues for each candidate, assessor and workplace. This must be regularly reviewed and followed up and allows progression to be monitored and any issues to be addressed quickly.

A verifier that is aware of performance is able to proactively manage their provision. If problems do arise these can be identified and dealt with quickly.

Holistic verification

Traditionally verification focused on verification of completed units and portfolios. This form of outcome based quality assurance led to an over reliance on paperwork and often only identified problems after they had occurred.

Nowadays a more holistic approach is expected. Continuous professional development of centre staff, observation of assessment practice, sampling of units in progress and meeting candidates. This approach allows quality assurance to look at process as well as outcome.

Sing from the same song sheet

NVQ can be very flexible, in fact this is one of the strengths of the system. However this can lead to differences across a centre between verifiers. This can be very confusing for assessors and this can affect their practice and development. It can also impact on the confidence that assessors and candidate have in the centre.

It is essential to have a uniform assessment and verification strategy across a centre and common expectations and requirements from different verifiers.

To achieve this there needs to be strong leadership, often from a coordinator or lead verifier. Also sampling and standardisation across verifiers is just as important as between assessors. Where there are differences these need to be sorted out between the verification team and agreement reached even if there are differences in opinion.

Assure successful NVQ provision

Verifiers have a key role in contributing to the management of NVQ. Part of this is to ensure that those factors that contribute to successful NVQ are in place.

Some examples include: Do verifiers, candidates and assessors have access to sufficient time and resources, does the provision meet the individual needs of candidates, does the candidate have access to effective support and assessment?

Where this is not the case then it is important for verifiers to identify and take responsibility for addressing any areas for development. Even better aim to plan and implement NVQ provision in a way that will ensure success.

Copyright TMS NVQ Support Services 2008. All materials published within www.nvqweb.com, unless stated otherwise, are protected by international trademark and copyright laws and must only be used for personal, non-commercial purposes only. NVQweb PLUS Coordinator and Corporate members have permission to use and edit NVQweb materials for use within their own organisation.

This is one of a series of articles available at www.nvqweb.com that aim to develop understanding of NVQs and their assessment.

All of us must share the desire to work in successful NVQ provision. One where most people can be expected to achieve their qualification (or units). However there can be times where the reality of NVQs in Care has been the opposite, certainly in terms of reported poor retention and achievement.

This edition of NVQ Assess seeks to highlights some of the factors that can make NVQ Assessment successful and then asks readers to reflect on how well their own assessment practice takes account of these factors.

It can be all to easy to explain away poor performance as being out of our hands. For example staff leaving (to work in the new supermarket?), poor funding of care, poor working conditions, badly written and confusing NVQ standards etc. These are all real factors that affect what we do and we do need to take these into account. However there is also the consideration that many NVQ programmes are actually very successful despite of these difficulties.

Let us therefore consider some of the factors that are perhaps critical to success and that we have more control over. The following table lists and discusses some of my own ideas. You may have some others you could add to this list.

Success Factors

Assessor/Verifier's who are experienced and occupationally competent: Skilled assessors and verifiers will often be able to achieve consistently strong results even when other factors are absent. We all have to learn somewhere and when novice or unqualified assessors/verifiers are in place they should be getting strong support from someone with this level of expertise.

The candidate has personal reasons for wanting the qualification: Candidates who have no personal stake in the NVQ often struggle with their own enthusiasm.

Early and regular achievement through award: Lets face it, what motivates like success? Having a unit signed off or having evidence collected and approved will boost confidence and enthusiasm everytime. Especially important for a new candidate. Action planning using SMART goals can support this sense of achievement especially in the early days where progess can be slow.

Candidates have previous experience and achievement in education:  prominent feature in care is that many candidates have not been in education for a log time and that many did not have a very satisfying time when they were there last. Pre-NVQ programmes can make a big difference here.

Programme design and delivery is closely matched to candidate and workplace need: Many people see the differences between NVQ programmes as a problem. In fact the ability for NVQs to be flexible is a real strength when meeting the individual needs of candidates and the workplace.

Sufficient time: The workplace is hectic and unpredictable. Staff often have busy life's outside of work. Good monitoring of time being spent on the programme and close

Correct choice of award and unit: Ever noticed how fast NVQ becomes when it is easy to collect evidence? Also when the level of the qualifications matches the learner? Strong advice, guidance, selection, initial assessment and induction are all part of this.

Support from workplace management: Commitment and support from management make things happen.

Easy to use learning and assessment materials: We have enough hassle with understanding the NVQ and Occupational standards without this being made more difficult by poorly designed forms and support materials.

Access to support: Most centres have support systems down on paper. But are these systems really used by the people who are at most need?

Clear systems are in place for action planning and review: Isn't it nice to know where we are at, where we are going, how we are going to do it and when?

Strong focus on candidate progress by the NVQ Assessment Centre: Centres should always have a close eye on candidate progress. This allows early warning of problems and ensures accountability of everyone involved. No NVQ programme is perfect, at least not all of the time. The same goes for those of us that work in NVQ. So it is not unusual to have many of these factors operating below expectations at anyone time. In fact NVQ will often continue to be successful even where many of these factors have gone critical. However there comes a point where, even with the best will in the world, the difficulties will outweigh the positives. This may not happen overnight and there may be a gradual process of decline. Where this is the case you will usually see a clear weakening of candidate performance and the more established this becomes the harder it can be to reverse.

Reflecting on success

Using the above success factors now think about and question your own, and your centres, assessment practice. Does it encourage and reward success, or just the opposite?

Don't forget the object of this exercise is not to be perfect especially if you are just starting off as a new assessor or verifier. In fact given the environment that we work in if you are getting it mostly right then you deserve a very large pat on the back.

However most of us may see some ideas for areas of development. For example one significant change I made in my own practice was when I started agreeing and reviewing timed action plans for specific achievement with the candidate. I actually felt very mean setting these targets, after all isn't the pace of the NVQ supposed to be candidate led. But suddenly I found the candidates working to meet these dates and getting very motivated about it indeed. Not only were the candidates more motivated but they were also empowered to give me grief if they were not getting enough support to meet their deadlines.

Of course you will note that some of the factors in the table above are firmly within the control of your Assessment Centre. In this case the action you may need to take is letting the centre know about your ideas and suggestions for centre development. This may be through direct contact or by attending assessment meetings. You may of course be in a position of making decisions at that level. Take the example of an assessor who is aware that the candidates could be doing units better suited to their job. Discussion with the centre should be able to resolve this both for the current and future candidates and therefore increase the likelihood of success.

Another important partner in managing some of the above factors is the workplace and or employer. In many centres the assessor is often the key liaison between the employer and the NVQ Assessment Centre. This places the assessor in a very powerful position in their ability to connect all of those involved in the assessment process. For example where there are problems with time and poor progression the assessor is in a position to bring the workplace manager into the circle and ask for their assisitance.

Balancing success with quality

There is of course the need to balance easy achievement with the robustness of the qualification. What we must not do in the search for improved achievement is lower the evidence requirements below what is needed to prove competence against the national standards. There will always be a broad band of what is acceptable and this often changes with time. However at the end of the day assessors and verifiers must be happy that they can justify their practice to verification and that the people they assess as competent are exactly that. Quality not quantity.

In conclusion

The factors that can impact on successful NVQ are many and varied. By ensuring these factors are taken into account in our own practice and through liasing with our Centre and the workplace we can make a real difference to the achievement of candidates.

Copyright TMS NVQ Support Services 2008. All materials published within www.nvqweb.com, unless stated otherwise, are protected by international trademark and copyright laws and must only be used for personal, non-commercial purposes only. NVQweb PLUS Coordinator and Corporate members have permission to use and edit NVQweb materials for use within their own organisation.