Research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation

Evidence considered

For research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation, the instrument should be used to identify the intended direction, the actors addressed and the implementation measures that remain necessary.

For research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation, Implementation should be organised around a decision that can be tested.

The principal risks in relation to the applicable requirement are reasonable adjustment altering the assessed outcome, weak assurance of authorship or performance, uncontrolled changes to assessment, and tasks that do not assess the stated outcome. When examining research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation, the relationship between the risks is material: one failed safeguard may remove the evidence needed to activate another.

Assurance of the applicable expectation should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include marking criteria and calibrated judgement, assessment maps to learning outcomes, analysis of results and differential outcomes, approval and change-control records, and appeal and correction records. For research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation, a positive example may illustrate operation, but it cannot demonstrate coverage or consistency.

Application and scope

In examining research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation, across the defined scope, validity without adequate consistency may expose learners to unequal judgement.

The assurance record for the applicable requirement should retain the date of the evidence, the source responsible for it, the scope examined and the version of any instrument or definition applied. For research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation, this enables later review to separate substantive change from correction, reclassification or expanded coverage.

• Review differential and anomalous results before it informs a consequential decision.
• Define the decision each assessment must support.
• Calibrate assessors.
• Align tasks and criteria with learning outcomes.
• Retain evidence sufficient for review.

Relevant controls

A competent review of the applicable requirement should map the complete process, identify the intended result and responsible authority at each stage, and test normal cases together with exceptions.

In the context of research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation, the final record on the applicable expectation should identify the applicable expectation, the relevant scope, the evidence examined, the sampling basis, material exceptions and the reason for the conclusion.

• What outcome is intended?
• Which evidence establishes operation?
• What action is required by the finding?
• Where do exceptions occur?
• Who controls each stage?

Review criteria

For decisions concerning research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation, assessment should provide valid and sufficiently consistent evidence that the stated learning outcomes have been achieved by the learner receiving the result.

Assurance concerning the conclusion requires corroborating evidence across the material scope.