Language teaching · Language testing · Verifiable professional development

VerifyApply

CQ-EX-01 · Certi Mark for Language Testing

Language Testing Certi Mark Standard

Two award routes are available: a named examination or precisely identified test suite, and an examination body with defined activities and portfolio. Each recognition is limited to the subject, functions, examinations and conditions listed in the public record.

CurrentVersion 1.0 Effective 01 Feb 2026

Scope

What this standard applies to

Two award routes are available: a named examination or precisely identified test suite, and an examination body with defined activities and portfolio. Each recognition is limited to the subject, functions, examinations and conditions listed in the public record.

Structure

Sections, requirements and evidence

CQ-EX-01.1Purpose, construct and framework alignment5 requirements
  1. 1. The intended purpose, decision context, target population and foreseeable consequences of score use are explicit and supported by a maintained validity argument.
  2. 2. The construct, language-use domain, skills, content coverage and sources of construct-irrelevant variance are defined in test specifications.
  3. 3. Test developers and expert judges are selected against documented competence criteria and work under reviewable procedures.
  4. 4. Parallel forms and successive administrations are built to common specifications and checked for comparable content and difficulty.
  5. 5. Any claimed relationship to the CEFR or another framework is supported by specification, familiarisation, standardisation, standard setting, empirical validation and ongoing maintenance evidence.
Illustrative audit evidence
  • Validity argument, test specifications, target-language-use analysis, expert records, form-comparability studies and framework-linking report.

Evidence is sampled according to scope, risk and delivery model; this list is not exhaustive.

CQ-EX-01.2Administration, logistics, security and access5 requirements
  1. 6. Test centres and delivery partners are selected, authorised, trained, monitored and, where necessary, suspended using risk-based criteria.
  2. 7. Materials, item banks, candidate data and results are traceable and protected during creation, storage, transfer, use and disposal.
  3. 8. Delivery staff receive usable procedures and support; incidents, disruptions and deviations are recorded, investigated and resolved consistently.
  4. 9. Identity, attendance, malpractice, remote-proctoring, result and certificate controls are proportionate to the delivery mode and consequences of the test.
  5. 10. Access arrangements are decided consistently, documented and evaluated so that avoidable barriers are removed without changing the construct assessed.
Illustrative audit evidence
  • Centre contracts and monitoring, chain-of-custody logs, incident files, access-arrangement decisions, security tests and administration observations.

Evidence is sampled according to scope, risk and delivery model; this list is not exhaustive.

CQ-EX-01.3Scoring, rating and grading2 requirements
  1. 11. Scoring keys, automated scoring, clerical controls, grade boundaries and result calculations are verified for accuracy and reproducibility.
  2. 12. Raters are trained, standardised, authorised and monitored; agreement, severity, drift and inconsistent performance lead to defined action.
Illustrative audit evidence
  • Scoring specifications, quality-control logs, standardisation packs, rater statistics, double-marking or moderation samples and boundary-setting records.

Evidence is sampled according to scope, risk and delivery model; this list is not exhaustive.

CQ-EX-01.4Test analysis, reliability and fairness2 requirements
  1. 13. The owner analyses candidate and subgroup outcomes, reviews differential impact and investigates plausible sources of bias or unfair disadvantage.
  2. 14. Item and task performance, score distributions, reliability, classification consistency and measurement uncertainty are analysed with methods appropriate to the test and sample.
Illustrative audit evidence
  • Item facility and discrimination, reliability or generalisability analyses, standard error or classification data, subgroup review and documented follow-up.

Evidence is sampled according to scope, risk and delivery model; this list is not exhaustive.

CQ-EX-01.5Governance, results and responsible use7 requirements
  1. G1. For a Certi Mark – Examination Body, governance identifies accountable roles, decision authorities, conflicts, competence requirements and independent quality oversight.
  2. G2. The quality system controls the examination portfolio, centres and partners, information security, incidents, complaints, appeals, changes and corrective action.
  3. G3. Organisational conclusions are supported by representative sampling across the examinations, functions, sites, languages, levels and delivery modes included in scope.
  4. 15. Results are issued within stated timeframes, with secure correction routes, retained decision evidence and intelligible information on what scores mean.
  5. 16. Candidates, centres and score users receive accurate information on purpose, content, format, preparation, scoring, reliability, limitations, access, appeals and complaints.
  6. 17. Guidance on score interpretation distinguishes supported uses from unsupported extrapolation and is reviewed when the test or its context changes.
  7. 18. The owner monitors foreseeable misuse and takes proportionate action when scores are interpreted or applied contrary to candidates’ interests or the test’s stated limitations.
Illustrative audit evidence
  • Governance maps, role authorities, portfolio reviews, quality objectives, risk records, centre monitoring, incident and change logs, complaints, appeals and corrective-action evidence.
  • Service-level data, result and certificate samples, candidate handbook, score-user guide, complaints and appeals, misuse log and documented interventions.

Evidence is sampled according to scope, risk and delivery model; this list is not exhaustive.

Indicators

What effective implementation looks like

  • A technical claim is accepted only when the method, data, limitations and responsible interpretation can be inspected.
  • The audit samples the full examination lifecycle and tests both documented design and operational implementation.
  • Material changes to construct, format, delivery, scoring, cut scores or intended use trigger review of the validity argument and recognition scope.
  • For a Certi Mark – Examination Body, the audit samples governance and the quality system across a representative part of the examination portfolio and operating network.
  • A Certi Mark – Examination Body does not, by itself, validate the score interpretation or framework alignment of every examination; each named product must be expressly included in scope.

Related Certiqual guidance

How the requirements are interpreted in practice.

Certiqual

Building an examination validity argument

Guidance linking intended score interpretation to test design, scoring, empirical evidence, consequences and maintenance.

Open the guidance
Certiqual

Responsible CEFR alignment

The seven-control protocol used to examine the definition, standard setting, validation and maintenance of level claims.

Open the guidance

Version history

Decisions remain linked to their basis.

01 Feb 2026Version 1.0

Current published version.

No earlier versionHistorical integrity

Future versions will be added without overwriting this record.