Common Questions About Pre-use Assessment Review
If you read our article on Pre-use Assessment Review and the 2025 Standards for RTOs, you’ll understand that the intent is that assessment tools must be checked before they’re used, not after something goes wrong.
Since publishing that article, we’ve had a steady stream of very good questions from RTOs trying to implement Standard 1.3 in the real world with limited time, mixed-quality resources, and constant pressure to just get it delivered. This follow-up article answers some of the most common questions we receive.
Why Pre-Use Review Matters
Pre-use review of assessment tools is a risk control. If assessment tools are not reviewed prior to use, the consequences are rarely confined to a single unit or trainer. The risk tends to cascade:
Regulatory risk: inability to demonstrate Outcome Standard 1.3 Performance Indicator b (OS1.3 PIb) and Outcome Standard 1.4 (OS1.4) in practice
Student risk: invalid judgments, rework, complaints, and poor outcomes
Operational risk: urgent remediation, staff time blowouts, disrupted delivery
Reputational risk: loss of confidence from employers, industry partners and students
The goal is to have a repeatable, defensible system that stands up under scrutiny.
What is a pre-use assessment review?
Under Outcome Standard 1.3, RTOs must be able to demonstrate that:
Assessment is consistent with the requirements of the training product
Assessment tools are reviewed prior to use, so assessment can be conducted in line with the principles of assessment and rules of evidence (Outcome Standard 1.4)
Outcomes of the review inform improvements to tools
This is different to validation under Outcome Standard 1.5, which is a structured quality assurance process focused on assessment practices and judgements (using samples of completed assessments).
Common Questions
Q1: Do we have to review every assessment tool, or can we just sample?
Pre-use review is not a sampling activity. The requirement is to ensure ALL assessment tools are reviewed prior to use. This means every tool must be reviewed before first use, and again before reuse if it has been revised.
Sampling is explicitly referenced under validation (Outcome Standard 1.5), where RTOs use a risk-based approach to determine the scope and sample size of completed assessments.
Q2: Do we need industry to review all assessment tools prior to use?
Not necessarily.
ASQA’s FAQs make it clear that providers must:
Ensure assessment is consistent with the training product, and
Review tools prior to use against the principles of assessment and rules of evidence
The Standards also require providers to engage with industry, employer and community representatives as part of reviewing training and assessment strategies and practices, but that doesn’t mean industry must personally review every single tool.
A defensible approach is to:
Use industry input where it reduces risk (authenticity, workplace relevance, current practice), and
Combine it with internal moderation and/or trialling.
Q3: Do we need to re-review all our existing tools before 1 July 2025? (Noting it is now post 1 July 2025)
ASQAs FAQs describe this as a good practice check.
In plain terms:
If your tools were developed under the 2015 Standards, it’s sensible to confirm they’re still fit-for-purpose and aligned.
If you have never conducted a formal review or validation on the assessment tools (because you were sampling), then you MUST do this before they are used again. Prioritise these tools over those that have already undergone a formal review or validation. You will need to show evidence that assessment tools have been reviewed as fit-for-purpose prior to use.
The mandatory requirement is that, as you introduce new tools or revise existing ones after 1 July 2025, you must ensure these are reviewed prior to use (Outcome Standard 1.3).
Q4: Who is allowed to do the pre-use review? Are there credential requirements?
The 2025 Standards do not specify who must conduct the pre-use review, nor do they list specific credential requirements for this activity. However, consider the intent of the process and the experience and qualifications needed to conduct a thorough review that meets that intent. This would indicate that the person undertaking the review needs to be conversant with the requirements of the training product, industry requirements and a thorough understanding of the principles of assessment and rules of evidence.
The Practice Guide also gives examples of how you might do it, including:
Consulting with industry to confirm workplace relevance
Moderating the tool with other trainers/assessors with current skills and knowledge
Trialling the tool with a select group similar to your student cohort
The key governance questions are:
Do we have the right people involved to ensure the review is meaningful?
Can we demonstrate that the review resulted in fit-for-purpose tools and improvements?
Q5: Do we have to trial assessment tools, or can we just review them against unit requirements?
Trialling is not mandatory, but it is one of the example approaches in the Practice Guide.
A desk-based review against unit requirements can be appropriate in some contexts, but trialling becomes more defensible when:
The cohort is unusual or high-needs
The delivery mode is changing (e.g., from classroom to online)
The assessment is complex, practical, or safety-critical
You’ve had complaints, poor outcomes, integrity issues, or rapid staff turnover
Q6: We buy off-the-shelf assessments that come pre-validated. Do we still need to review them?
Yes.
ASQA’s FAQs are blunt on this: providers must ensure tools are contextualised and fit-for-purpose for their training environment and student cohort.
Generic, off-the-shelf tools that are not tailored can be a compliance risk.
At a minimum, you should document:
What you changed (contextualisation)
Why you changed it (cohort/workplace context)
How you confirmed it still meets training product requirements
Q7: What evidence should we keep to prove we did a pre-use review?
Aim for evidence that shows three things:
What was reviewed (tool name/version, unit, qualification, delivery mode)
How it was reviewed (moderation notes, marked-up copy of the assessment tool, mapping check, trial feedback, industry input)
What changed as a result (annotated assessment tool with tracked changes, version updates, improvement log, action list)
Avoid generic tick-box templates with no commentary. The Practice Guide explicitly flags that as a known risk.
Conclusion
For most RTOs, the challenge isn’t understanding the words reviewed prior to use, but implementing a process that is repeatable, proportionate and defensible. If you treat pre-use review like validation sampling, you’ll likely under-control risk. If you treat it like a massive audit project, you’ll likely overburden the business.
What Next?
Need a fast, defensible pre-use review process?
If you want support to operationalise this (without creating a compliance paper mountain), we offer two options:
AI-assisted assessment review: a cost-effective approach that uses AI for the heavy lifting (initial checks, consistency scans, gap flagging), with expert oversight to confirm accuracy and contextual fit.
Premium human assessment review: a 100% human-led review for RTOs with complex tools, higher-risk outcomes, or strict data security requirements.
If you’d like to talk through what’s most appropriate for your scope and risk profile, get in touch.
Sources
ASQA Practice Guide: Assessment (Standards 1.3, 1.4, 1.5), published 17 June 2025
2025 Standards for RTOs FAQs Version 3.0, 1 October 2025
VETNexus blog: Pre-use Assessment Review and the 2025 Standards for RTOs, 17 October 2025
Disclaimer: AI was consulted in the creation of this article
Explore our other articles
