Standard 1.4 ensures RTOs design and implement assessment systems that are:
- Fair, flexible, valid, and reliable (Principles of Assessment)
- Supported by evidence that is valid, sufficient, authentic, and current (Rules of Evidence)
RTOs must have assessment systems that give every learner a fair chance, produce consistent results across assessors, and ensure that the evidence provided is genuine and current.
Breaking Down Standard 1.4
Principles of Assessment
- Fairness – Supports student needs, allows reasonable adjustments, and enables reassessment if required.
- Flexibility – Fits the learner’s context and prior experience (e.g., RPL).
- Validity – Assesses the actual skills and knowledge described in the training product, including practical demonstrations.
- Reliability – Different assessors make consistent judgements from the same evidence.
Rules of Evidence
- Validity – Evidence matches the competency requirements.
- Sufficiency – Enough evidence is collected to support a judgment.
- Authenticity – The work is genuinely the student’s own.
AI Risk: With AI tools like ChatGPT, students can generate written answers that appear correct but are not their own. RTOs must have processes to verify authenticity, such as:
- Oral questioning to confirm written responses
- Plagiarism/AI detection tools
- Trainer observations during practical tasks
- Student declarations signed with assessment submissions
Auditors will now check if your RTO can prove how you identified student work as authentic.
- Currency – Evidence shows the student’s current skills and knowledge (not from years ago).
Real-Life Case Study: Certificate III in Individual Support
Audit Context:
One of my RTO clients delivering CHC33021 Certificate III in Individual Support (including to overseas students) was audited under Standard 1.4 and found non-compliant.
Findings (Non-Compliance):
Observable behaviours are not detailed enough
- Practical task marking guides did not specify observable behaviours clearly.
- Result: Assessors interpreted performances differently → inconsistent judgements.
Unclear assessment questions
- Written questions were vague. Students were confused and provided incomplete answers.
- Different assessors accepted different answers.
Incorrect mapping
- Mapping was inaccurate → some unit requirements were not covered at all.
- Result: Tools did not meet the training package requirements.
Overseas delivery not aligned with Australian standards
- Practical components in overseas campuses did not demonstrate compliance with Australian conditions (workplace tasks, equipment, supervision).
Compliant Approach (What We Implemented):
- Detailed observable behaviours: Rewrote marking guides to specify step-by-step criteria for practical tasks (e.g., manual handling, personal care tasks).
- Clearer questions: Reworded assessment questions with clear outcomes and sample answers to support assessor consistency.
- Accurate mapping: Conducted a full mapping review to ensure every element and performance criteria were addressed.
- Overseas alignment: Developed placement agreements, evidence guides, and photos/videos to demonstrate facilities and practices aligned with Australian industry standards.
- Assessor moderation: Introduced quarterly moderation meetings to benchmark judgements across all campuses.
Outcome:
- Audit rectification accepted by ASQA.
- Students received fairer, more consistent assessments.
- Assessors had clarity and confidence in marking.
Self-Assurance for Standard 1.4
To avoid these issues, RTOs should build self-assurance checks into their assessment system:
Step 1 – Review Tools Against Principles & Rules
- Use a checklist to confirm fairness, flexibility, validity, reliability, sufficiency, authenticity, and currency.
Step 2 – Train Assessors
- Run PD sessions on consistency, moderation, and AI risks.
Step 3 – Benchmark & Moderate
- Hold regular moderation meetings so assessors apply criteria the same way.
Step 4 – Verify Authenticity
- Introduce oral questioning, observation, and signed declarations to counter AI risks.
Step 5 – Record Improvements
- Log changes in the Continuous Improvement Register to demonstrate ongoing compliance.
FAQs on Standard 1.4
RTOs must ensure all assessments are conducted fairly, flexibly, validly, and reliably. Assessors must also base their judgements on evidence that is valid, sufficient, authentic, and current, so competency outcomes are accurate and defendable.
- Fairness – Students are given reasonable adjustments (without lowering standards) and opportunities for reassessment.
- Flexibility – Assessments are contextualised to the student and delivery mode, including RPL.
- Validity – Tasks measure the actual skills and knowledge described in the training package, including practical application.
- Reliability – Assessment results are consistent regardless of assessor or context.
- Validity – Evidence relates directly to the competency.
- Sufficiency – Enough quality evidence is gathered to make a sound judgement.
- Authenticity – The work must genuinely be the student’s own.
- ASQA highlights authenticity risks in online delivery, and now with AI. RTOs must verify identity and originality using methods like student declarations, oral questioning, plagiarism/AI detection tools, and observed demonstrations.
- Currency – Evidence must reflect current competence, not outdated skills.
By offering reasonable adjustments such as oral instead of written responses (when appropriate), providing students with clear instructions, and having an appeals process. However, adjustments must never compromise the integrity of the competency.
- Vague or inconsistent marking guides → assessors make different judgements.
- Incorrect mapping of tasks to unit requirements.
- Acceptance of group work or AI-generated content without verifying individual authenticity.
- Overseas or distance delivery where workplace/practical conditions don’t align with Australian standards.
- Use clear decision-making rules (e.g., model answers, detailed observable behaviours).
- Hold regular moderation sessions to benchmark judgments.
- Document context and assessment conditions in system policies.
ASQA expects RTOs to prove student evidence is genuine. This may include:
- Verifying identity at enrolment and assessment.
- Conducting live practicals or oral questioning to confirm written responses.
- Using plagiarism/AI detection software.
- Requiring signed declarations from students for all submitted work.
Assessors must check that evidence reflects current skills. For example, a portfolio from five years ago may not demonstrate competence today. In high-change industries like IT or health, evidence must be recent enough to reflect industry standards.
- Use checklists to confirm every tool meets the principles and rules.
- Run assessor PD on consistency and AI authenticity risks.
- Benchmark outcomes in moderation meetings.
- Keep continuous improvement records showing how issues were fixed.
Getting Standard 1.4 right means avoiding the most common assessment non-compliances — inconsistent judgements, unclear questions, mapping errors, and authenticity risks.
Disclaimer:
The information presented on the VET Resources blog is for general guidance only. While we strive for accuracy, we cannot guarantee the completeness or timeliness of the information. VET Resources is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information. Always consult a professional for advice tailored to your circumstances.
