What's the Difference?
What's the Difference?
Validation can be confusing - not least because there are a number of different types of validation activities that may be carried out by an RTO. Here is some clarity on some of the differences:
This is an analysis of the materials before they are put into use, and to confirm requirements will be fulfilled. Pre-implementation validation might include a validation of mapping to confirm coverage against the unit, and a validation of assessment which is a check that the instruments have been written to collect the right type of evidence as required by the training package/unit of competency. Validation of assessment also confirms that the assessment has been designed to allow for the provision of sufficient evidence that is valid, reliable, authentic, and current.
Whilst it is best practice to validate materials to confirm they are fit-for-purpose, a pre-implementation may also occur as an 'assessment review'.
Pre-implementation validation is not mandated by the Standards for RTOs 2015.
However, for RTOs based in Western Australia, note that the state-based regulator TAC, expects that all assessment resources, whether purchased or designed internally, must be validated prior to use in accordance with the Principles of Assessment and Rules of Evidence.
The assessment review process would typically take place on materials already in the system. It would be looking to confirm the same things as a pre-implementation validation activity as well as confirming that assessments are fulfilling requirements.
Assessment review type of validation is not mandated by the Standards for RTOs 2015.
This validation activity is the formal process as required by the Standards for RTOs 2015. This a quality review process that every RTO must undertake. The aim of formal validation is to confirm that your RTO's assessment system can consistently produce valid assessment judgments.
It is typically conducted after assessment is complete - hence post-implementation validation.
Within this process, validators are to consider the validity of both assessment practices and assessment judgements (how the assessment has been conducted/the assessment system and how the assessments have been marked). It is the latter which can be confused with moderation - more on that below.
In a post-implementation validation, checks are done on the assessment tools to confirm they have produced valid, reliable, sufficient, current and authentic evidence—evidence that has allowed an RTO to make reasonable judgements about whether training product requirements have been met. Hence, it makes sense to have tools validated at pre-implementation stage and/or in an assessment review activity to catch any issues before getting to formal validation stage.
The Standards also require the following when it comes to formal validation:
RTOs must comply with all requirements associated with post-implementation validation.
Further information about this can be viewed at:
Post-implementation validation is mandated by the Standards for RTOs 2015.
Moderation
This is a process of comparing judgments and confirming that across the board, and over time, assessors are giving similar results for similar evidence.
Essentially a quality control process, moderation is completed before students are advised of their results. It aims to ensure all results decisions for a unit are aligned.
Moderation is not mandated by the Standards for RTOs 2015.
(this section adapted from 'Conducting validation, ASQA')