Published methodology · Framework v1.0

The framework
we judge by.

Every PQUAL assessment scores documented evidence against eight published domains. The methodology is public because a trust mark you can't inspect isn't a trust mark.

01

Governance & organisation

Legal standing, ownership transparency, financial stability, and documented management responsibility for training quality.

02

Trainer quality

Qualification, vetting, development and performance review of everyone who delivers training.

03

Course design

Defined learning outcomes, coherent curriculum, honest duration claims, and materials that match the syllabus.

04

Assessment integrity

Assessment methods that genuinely measure the stated outcomes, with controls against pass-for-payment behaviour.

05

Learner support

Pre-enrolment honesty, onboarding, feedback channels, complaint handling and reasonable-adjustment provision.

06

Ethical marketing

Claims in advertising are substantiated; no implied government accreditation; correct use of the PQUAL mark.

07

Certificate controls

Certificates issued only on genuine completion; records kept; revocation and error-correction procedures exist.

08

Continuous improvement

Learner outcomes measured, feedback acted on, and course content reviewed on a defined cycle.

Scoring philosophy

0–4, on evidence — never on promises

Assessors score each criterion on a five-point scale with anchored descriptions, calibrated across the assessor team for inter-rater reliability. Approval requires a mean score of 2.5 with no criterion below 2. Borderline scores are flagged for second review.

0
Absent — no evidence, or evidence contradicts the requirement
1
Ad hoc — practice exists informally, undocumented
2
Documented — written but inconsistently applied
3
Implemented — documented and consistently applied
4
Embedded — implemented with evidence of review and improvement
Governance & impartiality

Decisions are separated from sales

Assessors recommend; only PQUAL admins decide — and no one involved in selling a partnership participates in its assessment decision. Approval and rejection rates are published.

Standards & Advisory Board

Independent industry experts govern the framework's content and revisions. Framework versions are published, and every assessment records which version it was scored against.

Approval has teeth

Annual surveillance reviews, complaint investigation, suspension and public revocation. Suspended and revoked entities remain visible in the registry with dates — never silently removed.