On this page

Standard 1.3

The assessment system is fit-for-purpose and consistent with the training product.

Performance indicators

An NVR registered training organisation demonstrates:

  1. the assessment is consistent with the requirements of the training product;
  2. assessment tools are reviewed prior to use to ensure assessment can be conducted in a way that is consistent with the principles of assessment and rules of evidence set out under Standard 1.4; and
  3. the outcomes of any such reviews inform any necessary changes to assessment tools. 

  • You can demonstrate that your assessment system:
    • addresses all requirements of the training product
    • determines what competence looks like based on the unit elements, performance criteria and assessment requirements
    • contextualises assessment tools to the student cohort and industry/work context
    • balances theory with practical assessment to ensure students undertake all required tasks and demonstrate their competence in different settings
    • enables consistent collection of valid and reliable evidence.
  • You can demonstrate how you ensure assessment is fit-for-purpose and consistent with the requirements of the training product, and at an appropriate level of difficulty.
  • You can demonstrate how you ensure currency of assessment so that it is in line with the training product and current industry practice.
  • You can show how the integrity of assessment judgement is maintained when there are variations to the duration of training.
  • You can show how your assessment activities (resources, methods and timing) have considered the needs of your specific student cohort and context.
  • You can demonstrate how you have reviewed your assessment tools prior to use, for example by:
    • consulting with industry to confirm that the content of the tool is correct and relevant to the workplace
    • confirming that artificial intelligence (AI) in assessments aligns to actual workplace expectations and does not compromise skill demonstration
    • moderating the tool with other trainers and assessors who have current skills and knowledge
    • trialling the tool with a select group of individuals who have similar characteristics and abilities to your student cohort
  • You can show what changes and improvements have been made following a review of your assessment tools.
  • You can demonstrate how you tailor off-the-shelf tools into your assessment system. 

  • Reliance on purchased assessment tools that are not contextualised to your student cohort, learning environment and/or training product requirements.
  • Allowing students to use AI in assessments without checking that students can demonstrate their own skills and knowledge.
  • Generic templates or checklists to conduct the review of assessment tools prior to use.
  • Not conducting reviews on mandated assessment tools for licensed outcomes to ensure they meet the principles of assessment and rules of evidence. Where assessment resources are mandated by a licensing or regulatory authority, training providers are still responsible for ensuring they meet the requirements of the training product and the Standards. Additional training or assessment may be needed to be able to demonstrate how all the requirements have been met.  

Standard 1.4 

The assessment system ensures assessment is conducted in a way that is fair and appropriate and enables accurate assessment judgement of VET student competency.

Performance Indicators

An NVR registered training organisation demonstrates:

  1. the assessment system facilitates assessment which must be conducted in accordance with the following principles: 
    1. fairness – assessment accommodates the needs of the VET student, including implementing reasonable adjustments where appropriate and enabling reassessment where necessary;
    2. flexibility – assessment is appropriate to the context, training product and VET student, and assesses the VET student’s skills and knowledge that are relevant to the training product, regardless of how or where the VET student has acquired those skills or that knowledge;
    3. validity – assessment includes practical application components that enable the VET student to demonstrate the relevant skills and knowledge in a practical setting; and
    4. reliability – assessment evidence is interpreted consistently by assessors and the outcomes of assessment are comparable irrespective of which assessor is conducting the assessment.
  2. assessors make individual assessment judgements that are justified based on the following rules of evidence: 
    1. validity – assessment evidence is adequate, such that the assessor can be reasonably assured that the VET student possesses the skills and knowledge described in the training product;
    2. sufficiency – the quality, quantity and relevance of the assessment evidence enables the assessor to make an informed judgement of the VET student’s competency in the skills and knowledge described in the training product;
    3. authenticity – the assessor is assured that a VET student’s assessment evidence is the original and genuine work of that VET student; and
    4. currency – the assessment evidence presented to the assessor demonstrates the VET student’s current skills and knowledge. 

  • You can demonstrate how you go about providing clear guidance on what the assessment task is to both the assessor and the student so that they both know:
    • what is to be assessed
    • the context and conditions of assessment, including whether and how AI use is permitted
    • how and when assessment is to occur
    • the environment for the assessment.
  • You can demonstrate how you apply the principle of fairness in assessment – for example by:
    • considering students’ needs and making reasonable adjustments to your assessment processes or tools
    • ensuring students are fully informed of the assessment process and performance expectations before undertaking assessment
    • considering whether students need further training before being reassessed (in cases where students are initially unable to complete the required task to the level described in the assessment requirements)
    • having an appeals process to provide an avenue for students to challenge an assessment judgement and to have it reviewed objectively.
  • You can demonstrate how you apply the principle of flexibility in assessment – for example by:
    • adjusting your assessment system where a student has already demonstrated some aspects of the unit of competency through other means
    • recognising that students demonstrate competence in a variety of ways
    • drawing from a range of assessment methods to find those that are appropriate to your context, the assessment requirements, and the individual student.
  • You can demonstrate how you apply the principle of validity of assessment – for example:
    • assessment is based on evidence that demonstrates that a student could perform the skills and knowledge across a range of situations
    • assessment of knowledge and skills is integrated with practical application – skills are assessed by observing the student carrying out the relevant task in an appropriate environment
    • assessment tasks are designed so that AI cannot replace the skill being assessed (e.g. practical tasks still require hands-on work).
  • You can demonstrate how you apply the principle of reliability in assessment – for example by:
    • having an assessment system that includes sufficient context, detail and guidance to enable assessors to make consistent assessment decisions and minimises variation between assessors
    • developing evidence criteria (i.e. decision-making rules) to judge the quality of performance
    • identifying benchmarks for practical activities that are broad enough to allow for variations in the task being undertaken and any variations in the context, but include sufficiently detailed observable behaviours
    • actively assuring assessment practices through monitoring the reliability and consistency of decisions by your assessors on an ongoing basis.
  • You can demonstrate how you ensure validity in assessment judgements, for example:
    • judgement of competence is based on a range of relevant evidence, ensuring there is a direct relationship between the assessment task or activity the student undertakes (including assessment of practical application of skills), the evidence presented by the student and the assessment requirements.
  • requiring any AI-generated content to be supplemented with student explanations or demonstrations to confirm competence. You can demonstrate how you ensure sufficiency in assessment judgements – for example by:
    • gathering enough evidence to make a valid assessment judgement
    • adjusting the quantity of evidence gathered as required – some students may take longer or need to complete a greater number of tasks to demonstrate competence; others may not be able to achieve competence despite repeated opportunities. For example, additional evidence such as oral questioning or practical demonstration is required to supplement AI-assisted work.
  • You can demonstrate how you assure authenticity of assessment judgements – for example by:
    • considering the potential means by which a student may engage in academic cheating
    • validating that evidence ‘belongs’ to the student being assessed (e.g. has not been plagiarised).
    • requiring students to declare any AI use and establishing a process for identifying inappropriate or undisclosed AI use.
  • verifying that the person you are enrolling, training and assessing is the same person that will be issued with a qualification or statement of attainment.
  • You can demonstrate how you ensure currency in assessment judgements – for example by:
    • considering the time that has passed since the evidence of the student’s competency was generated
    • confirming that evidence reflects the student’s current ability, not outdated or generic AI-generated content. 

  • Using assessment tools that are not contextualised to the student cohort and assessment system.
  • Using outdated tools that ignore emerging AI practices and may fail to reflect current industry requirements, compromising currency.
  • Providing inconsistent instructions about AI use across tools, which can affect fair and reliable outcomes.
  • Making adjustments for a student to accommodate their needs or preferences that compromise the integrity of the training product – i.e. will not ensure that the student attains the required skills and knowledge specified in the assessment requirements.
  • Undertaking assessment of students in a group environment where it is unlikely that each student is able to be properly assessed as competent.
  • Not assessing students while on placement, particularly in qualifications where direct observation is required.
  • Failing to utilise appropriate technology to support assessments – for example using recorded video assessment evidence as the basis for assessment judgements rather than live video technologies (such MS Teams or Zoom), where direct observation is required.
  • Inadequate systems to ensure consistency in assessment across assessors.
  • Using AI tools for marking assessments without clear oversight, affecting fairness and reliability.  
  • Allowing people working under direction to make assessment judgements.
  • Insufficient governance of academic integrity and/or a lack of mechanisms or systems to identify and respond to academic cheating.
  • Using generic ‘tick box’ checklists to demonstrate a student has completed observational-type or practical assessments.
  • Not verifying that the individual completing the assessment is the student who will be issued with a qualification or statement of attainment.
  • Neglecting to review your assessment systems after completed cohorts have provided feedback and therefore missing opportunities to continuously improve.

Standard 1.5 

The assessment system is quality assured by appropriately skilled and credentialed persons through a regular process of validating assessment practices and judgements.

Performance Indicators

An NVR registered training organisation demonstrates:

  1. validation of assessment practices and judgements ensure the assessment system produces assessment judgements that are consistent with the training product and comply with the requirements set out in this instrument;
  2. every training product on the organisation’s scope of registration is validated at least once every five years and on a more frequent basis where the organisation becomes aware of risks to training outcomes, any changes to the training product or any feedback from VET students, trainers, assessors, and industry;
  3. it utilises a risk-based approach – informed by any risks to training outcomes, any changes to the training product or any feedback from VET students, trainers, assessors, and industry – to determine:
    1. the components of the assessment system for a training product which are to be validated; and
    2. the sample size of assessments that are to be validated in respect of a particular training product.
  4. in addition to the requirement in paragraph (b), the assessment system for an AQF qualification or skill set from the Training and Education Training Package that enables individuals to make assessment judgments (as specified in the Credential Policy) has been or will be validated:
    1. once the first cohort of VET students with the organisation have completed their training and assessment; and
    2. by a person who is independent, not employed or subcontracted by the organisation to provide training and assessment, and has no other involvement or interest in the organisation’s operations.
  5. validation is undertaken by one or more people who collectively have:
    1. industry competencies, skills and knowledge relevant to the training product;
    2. a practical understanding of current industry practices relevant to the training product; and
    3. one of the credentials for validation specified in the Credential Policy.
  6. the outcome of an assessment validation is not solely determined by a person who has designed or delivered the training or assessment; and
  7. how outcomes of an assessment validation are used to inform changes to the assessment system.

  • You can demonstrate how assessment practices and judgements are validated by:
    • monitoring and sampling the use of the assessment system to ensure it is implemented appropriately and in accordance with the rules of evidence
    • observing the use of assessment tools by your assessors to verify that the evidence being gathered is an accurate reflection of the relevant training product requirements and students’ performance
    • establishing a direct link between the evidence and the judgement of competence and confirming the principles of assessment have been met
    • seeking feedback from your assessors on how your tools and systems, including assessment instructions and resources, impact assessment judgements
    • ensuring that validators have access to the same evidence in the sample that the assessor used to make the original assessment judgement
    • sampling at least two units of competency when validating a qualification, accredited short course or skill set
    • sampling and reviewing assessments that involve AI-generated content to confirm assessors are interpreting and marking these accurately, particularly where technology is new or evolving.
  • You can demonstrate what action you take when validation activities identify issues with assessment tools or judgements. This might be done by:
    • increasing the sample size to identify trends
    • validating completed assessments from other units of competency to see if the issue is evident across the qualification
    • looking for patterns of error (for example, if it is one assessor making invalid judgements or multiple assessors).
  • You can demonstrate how you implement improvements to your assessment system in response to the findings of the validation process.
  • You use a risk assessment process to help identify the units of competency to be sampled as part of the validation process.
  • You can demonstrate that the sample of completed assessments used in the validation process is reflective of the diversity of student cohorts, delivery locations and number of assessors, and that there is a reasonable level of consistency of assessment judgements across the RTO.
  • You ensure that validation is conducted by appropriately experienced people that have the relevant industry competencies, understanding of current industry practices (including the use of AI tools), hold the relevant credentials, are independent of the design or delivery of training and assessment, and are able to provide unbiased feedback on the validation outcomes. 

  • Not having an appropriate validation plan and system for reviewing the risk of training products, determining the sample size and scope, guiding the validation team through the process of the validation, and capturing the validation outcomes.
  • Using limited or ineffective validation criteria or sample size to evaluate assessment practices effectively.
  • Not including assessments that incorporate AI tools or outputs into your validation sample.
  • Not using validation activities to strengthen and improve your assessment system including to address risks to students and integrity of assessment.
  • Having insufficient evidence to complete validation effectively – for example, not retaining records of completed student assessments where a training product has not yet been validated.
  • Not adequately ensuring consistency and principles of assessment are applied to assessment practices in various delivery settings – for example, online delivery or offshore delivery.
  • Relying too heavily on AI-assistance to make validation decisions without sufficient human oversight.  

Self-assurance questions

  1. How do you know your assessment system is fit-for-purpose for your various student cohorts and consistent with the requirements of the training product?
  2. How will you ensure your use of AI supports, and does not dilute, students’ development of skills and knowledge as required by the training product?
  3. How do you validate the authenticity of a student's assessment evidence?
  4. What due diligence do you undertake to ensure that your trainers and assessors, as well as those working under direction, meet the requirements of the Credential Policy?
  5. How do you monitor your assessment system and consistency of assessment judgements, and make any necessary changes to assessment tools and other materials?
  6. How do you ensure the principles of assessment and rules of evidence are incorporated when designing assessment systems?
  7. Have you clearly stated in the assessment instructions whether students can use AI, under what conditions, and explained how this supports valid and fair assessment?
  8. What systems and processes do you have in place to undertake regular, structured and impartial validation of assessment practices?
  9. Does your risk-based approach to validation consider AI-related factors when determining which components to validate and the sample size (e.g. products where AI use is permitted or previous AI-related issues)? 

Case studies

Using AI in assessment

At MMM Training Institute (MMM), the rise of generative AI prompted a review of assessment practices to ensure evidence remained valid, sufficient, authentic and current. Trainers noticed students submitting highly polished written responses that did not align with their demonstrated skills in class. Rather than prohibit AI, the provider introduced a structured AI-informed assessment model.  

Each assessment task was redesigned to include staged evidence collection. Students first completed supervised in-class activities, such as short responses or practical demonstrations, establishing a baseline of their own capability. They were then permitted to use AI tools to support extended tasks, provided they documented prompts and outputs in an AI use declaration.  

Assessors reviewed not only the final product but also the decision-making process, requiring students to explain, adapt and contextualise any AI-generated content. To ensure authenticity and currency, assessors conducted brief follow-up questioning, either verbally or via recorded submissions, asking students to justify key elements of their work. This triangulated evidence against the submitted task.  

Clear guidance supported fairness and flexibility. All students received training on ethical AI use, and practical adjustments were embedded without compromising evidence quality. As a result, MMM maintained the integrity of assessment while equipping students with responsible, industry-relevant AI practices.  

 

Risk-based validation in practice

XYZ Training Pty Ltd (XYZ) schedules every training product for validation at least once every five years. After assessors reported inconsistent decisions in two units, the provider brought validation forward rather than waiting for the next scheduled review.  

Using a risk-based approach, XYZ sampled completed assessments from both units across different assessors, student cohorts, delivery locations and assessment outcomes. Validators received the same evidence used for the original judgements, including student work, observation records, assessor feedback and marking guides.  

The validation team collectively held relevant industry competencies, current industry knowledge and the required validation credential. The assessor who delivered the units explained the assessment context but did not solely determine the findings.  

The review found that several practical observation records used broad tick-box criteria and did not contain enough evidence to support consistent judgements. The team increased the sample and confirmed the issue occurred across two assessors.  

XYZ documented the findings, revised the observation guide to include clear performance benchmarks, briefed assessors and monitored a further sample 3 months later. The follow-up confirmed that evidence was clearer and assessment judgements were more consistent, demonstrating that validation outcomes had informed improvements to the assessment system.

  1. When reviewing assessment tools prior to use, are there stipulations on who can do this review? And do the tools have to be trialled, or can they just be reviewed against the unit of competency requirements?  

    The 2025 Standards do not prescribe which individual(s) must be responsible for undertaking a review of assessment tools prior to use, nor list specific credential requirements. Providers can do this in a number of ways, including by testing them with industry experts or employers, other trainers and assessors with current industry knowledge, or with a group of people with similar levels of knowledge to the target VET student cohort. Providers should ensure that they revise the tools to incorporate feedback and ensure they are fit-for-purpose.

  2. What is ASQA's stance on employers / supervisors completing observation of practical demonstration as a component of the assessment process for a unit of competency?  

    In certain circumstances it is reasonable to use another party for evidence-gathering where workplace evidence is required but it is not possible for the assessor to directly observe the student at work. For example, in cases where:

    • the presence of an assessor may compromise workplace safety, or
    • where work activities involve issues of patient confidentiality and privacy.
       

    In such circumstances, the other party is not making any assessment judgements, nor are they involved in a ‘co-assessment’ arrangement. They are simply assisting in collecting evidence because they can directly observe the student in a real workplace setting. The assessment judgement about whether competency has been achieved based on all the collected evidence can only be made by a suitably qualified assessor who meets the Credential Policy requirements.

  3. How can students achieve competency in essential care tasks where participation is restricted (for example in ECEC), and what alternative approaches ensure they meet requirements and build confidence in practical tasks?  

    Providers remain responsible for ensuring students demonstrate the skills and performance outcomes required by the training product. Restrictions on activities, such as recording or performing certain care tasks, do not remove this requirement.  

    Assessment approaches may include:  

    • simulations and structured practical activities that replicate workplace tasks
    • third-party evidence from qualified workplace supervisors
    • direct workplace observation (without recording), where appropriate and privacy can be maintained
    • case studies and scenario-based assessments to support decision-making and safe practice  
    • incremental participation, for example assisting first, then progressing to more active involvement as permitted.

    Students should also have opportunities for repeated practice, feedback and guided reflection to build confidence and readiness for workplace practice. Clear expectations and demonstration by experienced staff can further support skill development.  

  4. If our college provides practical training in its own automotive workshop (a simulated environment), is this considered work placement, or must work placement occur in a real workplace?

    No. Practical training in the provider's own automotive workshop (or simulated environment) is not considered work placement.

    Work placement involves students undertaking activities in a real workplace and being exposed to genuine workplace conditions, processes and interactions. This includes working within normal business operations, interacting with supervisors, co-workers and customers, and responding to the demands and distractions of an active workplace.

    Whether a simulated environment can be used will depend on the requirements of the relevant training product. Simulated environments can be appropriate for developing and assessing some skills where they meet the training product requirements. However, where a unit of competency or qualification requires skills to be demonstrated in an actual workplace, students will need to complete those requirements in a real workplace rather than solely in a simulated setting.

    Providers should review the requirements of the relevant training product to determine whether assessment in a simulated environment is permitted or whether workplace-based evidence is required.  

  5. What is considered best practice for using video evidence to assess students undertaking work placements? What measures are needed to ensure the validity, authenticity and sufficiency of the assessment evidence?  

    For work placements, video recordings are best used as supplementary evidence rather than a substitute for direct observation. To ensure the evidence is valid, authentic and sufficient, providers should verify the student's identity, confirm the evidence is their own work, and support recordings with other evidence such as assessor questioning, workplace documentation or supervisor observations.

    Where recordings involve real clients, patients or other individuals, providers must also protect privacy and dignity by obtaining informed consent, clearly explaining how information will be used, recorded and stored, limiting access to recordings, and securely storing any assessment records. If privacy risks cannot be adequately managed, alternative approaches such as simulations or case studies should be considered. Where direct observation is required, the assessor should observe the student live rather than rely solely on recorded footage.  

  6. How should RTOs meet their obligations where training and assessment resources are mandated by a licensing or state regulatory authority?

    Where training and assessment resources are mandated by a licensing or regulatory authority, providers may have limited ability to modify them. However, providers remain responsible for ensuring training and assessment meet the requirements of the training product and the Standards. If mandated materials do not fully address unit requirements, providers should supplement them with additional training, assessment or resources as needed and be able to demonstrate how all training product requirements have been met. Regulatory restrictions do not remove a provider's obligation to assess all required outcomes.

    Where clarification is needed, providers may wish to engage with the relevant Jobs and Skills Council.  

  7. What does ASQA recommend to providers in a very small sector when validating its assessment tools?

    Validation is to be undertaken by one or more people who collectively have:

    • industry competencies, skills and knowledge relevant to the training product;
    • a practical understanding of current industry practices relevant to the training product; and
    • one of the credentials for validation specified in the Credential Policy.
       

    Providers must also ensure that the outcome of an assessment validation is not solely determined by a person who has designed or delivered the training and assessment. Having a group of individuals that make up a validation team will assist small providers where the only trainer and assessor (who conducted the training and assessment) is involved in the validation process.

  8. What are the new requirements for validating TAE training products?

    The Credential Policy requires that to validate any AQF qualification or skill set from the TAE Training Package that enables individuals to make assessment judgements, at least one of the people undertaking the validation activity must have an AQF qualification or skill set at least to the level being validated. ‘At least to the level’ refers to the level of skills and knowledge required in the training product being validated, rather than equivalence of the AQF level.

    In addition, Standard 1.5 of the Outcome Standards outlines the validation requirement that any AQF qualification or skill set from the TAE Training Package has been (or will be) validated once the first cohort of VET students with the organisation has completed their training and assessment. This validation must be by a person who is independent, not employed or subcontracted by the organisation to provide training and assessment, and have no other involvement or interest in the organisation’s operations.

  9. Has the requirement to validate 50% of products within the first 3 years of a 5-year validation cycle been removed?

    Yes. In the 2025 Standards, providers need to demonstrate that they have conducted validation of assessment practices and judgements at least once every 5 years for every training product on their scope of registration, or on a more frequent basis where the organisation becomes aware of risks to training outcomes, any changes to the training product or receives relevant feedback from VET students, trainers, assessors, and industry.