Verification

Operational leaders rely on competence assessments to confirm that people can perform safety-critical work safely and consistently.

Up-to-date records show that assessments have taken place. They do not, by themselves, show whether the evidence was sufficient, the assessor’s judgement was sound, or the required standard was applied consistently.

Effective verification provides that additional assurance. It examines the evidence and reasoning behind competence decisions, identifies variation in assessment practice and helps organisations address weaknesses before they become embedded across the competence management system.

What does verification mean?

The Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems Safety Regulations require controllers of safety-critical work, so far as is reasonably practicable, to ensure that people carrying out that work have been assessed as competent and fit.

ORR’s Developing and Maintaining Staff Competence guidance, RSP1, identifies verification as a way to support assessors, check the quality of competence assessments, and ensure the assessment process remains fit for purpose.

Verification should be undertaken by someone with appropriate assessment experience who is competent and authorised to perform the verification role, often an Internal Quality Assurer or internal verifier.

They may review assessment records, observe assessment activity and hold professional discussions with assessors and candidates.

They consider questions such as:

  • Were the appropriate competence standards and assessment methods used?

  • Was the evidence sufficient, authentic, valid, current and reliable?

  • Does the evidence support the assessor’s decision?

  • Are assessors interpreting and applying requirements consistently?

  • Were relevant technical and non-technical skills considered?

  • Do the assessment records explain how the decision was reached?

  • Do assessors have the guidance, time and support they need?

Verification differs from audit. Verification focuses on assessment practice, evidence, decisions, and the people making them. Audit considers the competence management system as a whole and whether it is operating effectively and in accordance with the organisation’s procedures and applicable requirements.

Both are important, but they answer different assurance questions.

What does verification look like in practice?

Imagine two assessors assessing the same railway task, such as a train dispatch procedure.

One accepts a verbal description of the procedure. The other asks the individual to demonstrate it and explain how they would respond if conditions changed.

Different assessment methods can be appropriate depending on the task, risks and competence standard. The question is whether each method generates enough relevant evidence to support a sound competence decision.

Verification can identify differences in approach and explore the reasoning behind them. This allows assessors to develop a shared understanding of the standard, the required evidence, and what competent performance looks like in normal, degraded, and emergency conditions.

Reviewing completed records is useful, but records alone may not reveal how the assessment was conducted. Observation and professional discussion help the verifier understand how the assessor tested competence, challenged the evidence and reached their decision.

Verification should be risk-based

Verification should not be reduced to checking an arbitrary percentage of completed assessments.

A proportionate verification plan should maintain suitable coverage while directing greater attention towards areas of higher risk or uncertainty.

This may include:

  • New or recently authorised assessors

  • New or changed competence standards

  • New routes, traction, equipment or operating arrangements

  • Marginal, disputed or inconsistent decisions

  • Unusually uniform assessment results

  • Incomplete or unsupported evidence

  • Recurring findings or overdue actions

  • Incidents, near misses and operational irregularities

  • Deteriorating competence or safety indicators

Data can help identify where greater assurance may be required, but it does not replace competent professional judgement. The verifier still needs to understand the operational context and determine what the information is actually indicating.

Who benefits from effective verification?

Railway staff

Verification supports fairer and more consistent assessment. It helps ensure decisions meet the required standard and are supported by appropriate evidence. It can also improve feedback quality and identify where further learning or development would be beneficial.

Assessors and managers

Verification provides constructive challenge and professional support. It creates opportunities to discuss difficult judgements, clarify evidence requirements and improve assessment practice.

Effective verification should not be experienced solely as someone checking completed forms or looking for mistakes. It should give assessors meaningful feedback, help them identify their individual development needs, and provide a safe route to raise uncertainty or request support.

Operational leaders

Verification provides greater confidence in the competence decisions the operation relies on. It helps leaders understand whether assessment standards are being applied consistently and whether records contain sufficient evidence to explain and defend the decisions made.

Safety and assurance teams

Verification can identify themes that are hard to see in a single assessment. These may include inconsistent interpretation, weaknesses in assessment design, gaps in assessor capability or pressures that affect the time available for meaningful assessment and feedback.

What can recurring findings tell us?

When the same weakness appears repeatedly, it may indicate something wider than an isolated assessor issue.

For example, assessment comments might describe what happened without explaining how the individual met the required standard. If this occurs across several assessors, locations or competence schemes, possible causes may include:

  • A requirement that is open to interpretation

  • An assessment method that does not generate the evidence needed

  • Inconsistent expectations between assessors

  • Insufficient guidance or standardisation

  • A need for targeted assessor development

  • Insufficient time or resources to conduct and record assessments effectively

Looking across assessment activity lets organisations distinguish individual development needs from systemic weaknesses and choose a proportionate response.

That response might include coaching, standardisation, revised guidance, changes to assessment materials or further targeted verification.

Verification must lead to improvement

The value of verification is not the number of records sampled or findings raised. Its value lies in the changes that result.

Each material finding should lead to a clear decision about what needs to happen, who owns the action and how the organisation will determine whether the response worked.

In one recent example, verification found that assessors returned written work until every answer was completely correct. This created additional work for candidates and required assessors to mark repeatedly, when they could have explored the remaining gaps through professional discussion or another appropriate assessment method.

The change maintained the required assessment standard while reducing marking turnaround from about two weeks to two days. It also created a richer range of evidence for the final competence decision.

This is the complete verification cycle:

  • Identify the assurance question

  • Select activity using risk and proportionate coverage

  • Review the evidence and assessment decision

  • Hold a meaningful quality conversation

  • Agree on corrective or developmental action

  • Use the findings in standardisation and future planning

  • Check whether the action changed practice and reduced the relevant risk

Without the final step, an action may be complete but ineffective.

How AssessTech can help

When the same issues keep appearing in verification findings, it’s worth asking whether the problem lies in assessment practice, your verification arrangements, or both.

AssessTech works with assessment and safety teams across the railway to understand where the weaknesses sit and how effective your current approach is.

We can:

  • Review your existing IQA and verification processes and identify gaps, inconsistencies and areas of competence risk

  • Develop assessors and verifiers through training, coaching and meaningful standardisation

  • Design proportionate, risk-based sampling strategies

  • Provide experienced IQAs when you need additional or independent verification capacity

  • Turn findings into actions and check whether those actions have improved practice

ACMS supports this by bringing assessment, verification and action information together, helping you identify patterns, target future activity and maintain an auditable record of the improvement cycle.

Talk to us about your current verification arrangements and where you need greater assurance.