Inspired by recent comments about reviewing assessment tools / pre-assessment validation / post-assessment validation, I decided to investigate the origin of the non-term “pre-assessment validation” and how the definition of validation has morphed over time, and across various quality frameworks and units of competency.
There are three main pathways in my rabbit warren. Choose your own adventure!
Reviewing assessment tools
Outcome Standard 1.3 spells out the requirement to review and amend assessment tools prior to use..
Is this anything new?
No! This has always been a requirement, (SRTO 2015, Clause 1.8) but now it is spelt out clearly.
Obviously, RTOs now need to consider how they will capture and present evidence of their quality review of assessment tools.
Validation: definitions over time
This rabbit hole involved exploring how the term ‘validation’ has been defined and used in various quality frameworks from the Australian Recognition Framework (ARF, 1999) through the Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF 2001, 2005, 2007, 2011, 2012) to the Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations (SNR 2012), the Standards for Registered Training Organisations (SRTO 2015) and finally the revised outcome standards (SRTO 2025).
Fascinating reading if you are into that sort of thing! If you are into it, click here – if not: here is a summarised version:
Prior to 2005, the AQTF used language that clearly indicated validation should be post-assessment, but rather than use the term ‘validation’, it stated, ‘The RTO must validate its assessment strategies’ including ‘evidence contributing to judgements’.
In 2005 the AQTF introduced the idea that ‘validation may be undertaken prior to and post assessment’. In 2007 the AQTF stated ‘Validation may be undertaken before, during and after the actual assessment activity occurs”.
In 2011, the AQTF dropped the reference to validation being undertaken prior to assessment and placed it very much in the post-assessment space.
Strangely, the SNR 2012 did not define validation, but the definition of validity within the Principles of Assessment is interesting: It describes validity as ‘…concerned with the extent to which an assessment decision about a candidate…based on the evidence of performance by the candidate, is justified.” This shows how validation is one way we can confirm validity.
In 2015, the SRTOs clearly described validation as a process that happens after assessment and introduced the ‘statistically valid sample’.
The SRTO 2025 take it one step further and require review of assessment tools prior to assessment (standard 1.3) and validation of assessment practices and judgements (standard 1.5).
So, in summary, apart from a little glitch between 2005 and 2011 where things got murky, validation has always been about reviewing assessment practices and judgements (including the tools used to make the judgements) AFTER assessment.
Validation: TAE units
Where did the term ‘pre-assessment validation’ come from?
I’ve focused on Certificate IV units, but obviously there are implications for the Diploma units too.
If you want a potted history of TAE units from 1998 to 2022, click here.
In summary:
Up until 2008, units of competence (BSZ, TAA, TAE) described review or validation of assessment as a process that occurred after the assessment judgement had been finalised.
In 2008, TAEASS403A introduced the concept of validation being conducted before, during and after assessment. This aligned with AQTF 2007 definition of validation.
The terms ‘pre-assessment validation’ and strangely, ‘pre-validation’ were first used in TAEASS413 (released in 2022). These terms do not align with any quality standards. Thanks, PWC!
Hopefully the next time TAE is released, this unit will be amended to align with SRTO 2025.
