The analysis of remote assessment identifies what the evidence establishes, where comparison is limited and which qualifications must be reported.
Evidence concerning remote assessment should be current, attributable and representative of the affected scope. Material gaps or contradictions should remain visible in the conclusion. Any indicator used in relation to the issue should distinguish description from causal explanation.
Application to remote assessment
The position at publication is informed by the continued online and hybrid assessment; evidence from the affected setting remains necessary before reaching a conclusion on remote assessment. Records concerning the analysis should remain traceable from source evidence to decision and follow-up.
For decisions concerning remote assessment, material differences in population, setting or method should remain explicit in any comparison. The public-interest assessment of the available evidence should consider access, learning, fair treatment and the reliability of information on which learners make consequential decisions.
The analysis should make its decision rule explicit. The evidential basis for the comparison should identify source, period, coverage and material limitations. For remote assessment, corroboration is required where a single record cannot support the decision.
Reporting on the issue should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action.
For remote assessment, analysis should state the unit of analysis, reference period, coverage, exclusions and treatment of missing information. The risks are connected, and failure of one safeguard may disable or conceal another.
The evidential record for the comparison should permit a reviewer to trace the matter from decision to outcome. Data used for the analysis should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population. When examining remote assessment, reporting should identify a break in comparability before describing movement over time.
Controls for remote assessment
Any indicator used in relation to the available evidence should distinguish description from causal explanation. Findings should establish whether the matter is isolated or indicates a condition requiring systemic response. Data used for the available evidence should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population.
The assurance record for the issue should permit another competent reviewer to understand the evidence, method, judgement and treatment of material exceptions. Data used for the measure should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population. For remote assessment, data used for the issue should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population.
Conclusions concerning the available evidence require careful treatment of scope and evidential limits. When examining remote assessment, reliability without validity produces consistent but potentially irrelevant results. Across the defined scope, validity without adequate consistency may expose learners to unequal judgement. The public-interest assessment of the measure should consider access, learning, fair treatment and the reliability of information on which learners make consequential decisions.
For remote assessment, traceable source and version information allow genuine improvement to be distinguished from administrative revision.
In the context of remote assessment, where responsibilities for delivery are shared with partners, suppliers or several public bodies, responsibility should be mapped across the complete service.
Implementation of the available evidence should connect the stated objective to authorised responsibilities, resources, operating controls and evidence of outcome across the affected scope. The record for the issue should identify the responsible function, decision authority and escalation route.