Malpractice and Maladministration Policy

PMI has a responsibility to have in place policies and procedures to prevent malpractice and/or maladministration in the development, delivery and award of its qualifications. PMI is applying this policy to ALL of its qualifications whether they are regulated or not.

This policy is aimed at PMI’s customers, including candidates taking our qualifications and centres delivering, awarding and accommodating the assessment of PMI examinations and/or workbased assessments within or outside the UK.

It is also for use by PMI staff to ensure they deal with all malpractice and maladministration investigations in a consistent manner.

It is important that all staff involved in the management, assessment, mentoring and quality assurance of our qualifications are fully aware of the contents of the policy and that we have arrangements in place to prevent and investigate instances of malpractice and/or maladministration.

This policy must be reviewed annually by the Qualifications, Examinations and Assessment Committee (QEAC) to ensure it is still fit for purpose

What is Malpractice?

Malpractice is, essentially, any activity or practice which deliberately contravenes PMI regulations and compromises the integrity of internal and/or external assessment processes and/or the validity of certificates.

It covers any deliberate actions, neglect, default or other practice that compromises, or could compromise:

  • The assessment process (whether that is internal or external assessment)
  • The integrity of PMI units and qualifications
  • The validity of a result or certificate
  • The reputation and credibility of PMI

Examples of malpractice by an individual/candidate/student could include:

  • Obtaining examination or assessment material without authorisation
  • Bringing unauthorised material into the exam room
  • Collusion – working collaboratively with other candidates in an examination
  • Fraudulent claims for special consideration
  • Plagiarism – presenting ideas, research, theories or words of others as one’s own
  • Breach invigilator instructions for the conduct of examinations

Examples of malpractice by centre staff could include:

  • Moving the time or date of an examination without permission of PMI
  • Failure to keep exam material secure
  • Failure to carry out invigilation/quality assurance of workbased assessments in accordance with PMI requirements/regulations
  • Failure to adhere to PMI’s published exam regulations and procedures, or to issue to candidates the appropriate notices and warnings before an exam begins
  • Deliberate failure to adhere to, or to circumnavigate, the requirements of PMI’s Reasonable Adjustments and Special Consideration Policy
  • Any action likely to lead to an ‘Adverse Effect’.

Ofqual’s General Conditions of Recognition defines ‘Adverse Effect’ as;

“An act, omission, event, incident, or circumstance has an Adverse Effect if it –

(a)Gives rise to prejudice Learners or potential Learners, or

(b)Adversely affects –

(i)The ability of the Awarding Organisation to undertake the development, delivery or award of qualifications in accordance with its Conditions of Recognition

(ii)The standards of the qualifications which the Awarding Organisation makes available or proposes to make available, or

(iii)Public confidence in qualifications

Examples of malpractice by an Awarding Organisation could include;

  • Failure to investigate and resolve known instances of malpractice
  • Provides coaching or training to candidates using testing or assessment items which will be used in actual assessments
  • Allows certification on the basis of incomplete or incorrect records of assessment
  • Allows certification where known breaches of security have taken place

What is Maladministration?

Maladministration is, essentially, any activity or practice which results in non-compliance with administrative regulations and requirements and includes the application of persistent mistakes or poor administration.

Generally maladministration will be the result of a genuine mistake rather than a deliberate plan to gain any sort of unfair advantage. However, it must be addressed to prevent re-occurrence and/or development into something more significant.

Examples of maladministration could include:

  • Inaccurate claim for certificates
  • Failure to maintain appropriate auditable records, eg candidate achievement, certificate claims, etc
  • Failure to invigilate according to PMI requirements
  • Failure to ensure that an examination venue complies with PMI requirements

Examples of maladministration by an Awarding Organisation could include;

  • Mismanagement relating to the development, delivery or award of qualifications
  • Poor certificate security or administration
  • Lack of adherence to procedures in qualification development, delivery or award.

Identification of Malpractice/Maladministration

Identification can come from a variety of sources both internal and external to PMI:

Centre assessment team – mentors, assessors, quality assurance, invigilators, centre contacts, invigilators, etc. Any suspicion of malpractice and/or maladministration should be reported to the Head of Qualifications at PMI immediately. This should include full details and any supporting evidence of the situation or incident concerned.

External Verifiers, Standardisation Verifiers, Exam Compliance Visitor, PMI Invigilators, etc. Any suspicion of malpractice and/or maladministration should be reported to the Head of Qualifications at PMI immediately. This should include full details and any supporting evidence of the situation or incident concerned.

Individuals – if reports are made verbally, the informant will be asked to put the allegation in writing. PMI will protect the identification of any informant who wishes to remain anonymous, as far as possible.

PMI Staff – if there are any instances of poor practice such as wrong exam results being issued, candidates not entered for exams which they applied to enter, incorrect certificates. Any suspicion of malpractice and/or maladministration should be reported to the Head of Qualifications or if that is not possible then the Head of Professional Standards who is PMI’s Responsible Officer.

Awarding Organisation Actions

When a report of suspected malpractice/maladministration is received the Head of Qualifications and the Responsible Officer at PMI will consider the facts and may decide to:

  • Take no further action
  • Contact the Centre and put together a plan of action to resolve the matter
  • Ask the Centre to carry out a full investigation and provide a written report
  • Conduct its own investigation and provide a written report
  • Nominate a third party to carry out an investigate and provide a written report

Copies of written reports will be held by PMI against a centre file, a copy is sent to the centre and a copy is sent to the External Verifier for that centre should that be deemed appropriate.

In the event where the suspected malpractice/maladministration is internal to PMI any written reports/revised processes will be reported to the Qualification, Examinations and Assessment Committee (QEAC).

Investigation Timelines

We aim to action and resolve all stages of the investigation within 15 working days of receipt of the allegation.

Investigation Outcomes

If any consideration of the facts and/or an investigation confirms that malpractice or maladministration has taken place then consideration will be made in order to;

  • Minimise the risk to the integrity of certification now and in the future
  • Maintain public confidence in the delivery and awarding of qualifications

The Head of Qualifications reports all cases of maladministration and malpractice to the Qualifications, Examinations and Assessment Committee (QEAC), along with any investigation findings and reports.

Code of Professional Conduct

The vast majority of individuals who sit or are involved with running PMI qualifications will be PMI Members and as such will be bound by the Code of Professional Conduct See link:

Therefore, cases of malpractice and/or maladministration are also likely to invoke a disciplinary matter which will be investigated by the Membership Department in the first instance. Such matters are subject to the Disciplinary processes of the Institute.

November 2015