Precedents database

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	transparency of criteria
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“29. The Register Committee took note of the panel's analysis that the criteria are well-documented in AHPGS' handbooks and are interpreted in a consistent manner.

30. Despite some room for improvement identified by the panel in that the Handbooks could be more detailed, the Register Committee considered that the flag was addressed and concurred with the panel's conclusion that AHPGS complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	clarity of the criteria for assessment
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (15/03/2019)
RC decision	Compliance

“Following the review panel's analysis that SQAA's criteria for assessment were not always clear and left room for interpretation, the Register Committee sought and received clarification from the panel on its conclusion as to the present standard. The Register Committee understood that SQAA's criteria were by and large perceived as clear, and that these remarks related to some – but not all or the majority of – criteria. It became clear that the panel's findings were more nuanced than the language might have suggested.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/06/2018
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	consistency in decision making
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee took note of the panel's analysis that the evidence in the report body does not always match the conclusion as to compliance with certain standards, and that it was not always possible to track all the information required by the standards in the text of the reports. The Register Committee understood that this might in part be a result of the duplication caused by the “add-on” way of incorporating the ESG.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/11/2017
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	decision making
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its last renewal decision (of 1/12/2012), the Register Committee flagged for attention the criteria for outcomes on the accreditation of existing programmes and in particular the consistency of decisions based on reviews undertaken by different agencies.The panel stated that NVAO has taken a number of steps to improve the decision-making process and found that there has been good progress in clarifying criteria for outcomes. The panel further underlined the difficulty of grading outcomes from insufficient to excellent on which further reflection by NVAO will be needed.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	criteria not published fully
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The review panel noted that ANQA's evaluation protocols, containing additional details about its standards, and the decision rules, used by the Accreditation Committee to differentiate their different possible accreditation decisions, are not published; the panel recommended that they be published.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	lack of consistent application of criteria for institutional evaluations; lack of criteria for evaluation of study fields
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“With regard to institutional evaluations the panel noted that the application of criteria for outcomes leaves too much room for interpretation and therefore undermines the consistent application of criteria. Considering the agency’s transitioning to evaluation of study fields the review panel further highlighted the need for development of criteria for the outcomes of subject level evaluations.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	lack of transparency in criteria; inconsistency in the application of critera; insufficient documentation for interpretation of criteria
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The review panel identified that some policies that affect ASHE's decision-making are not fully transparent and known by the stakeholders concerned. The panel further referred to some inconsistency in the application of ASHE's criteria and an insufficiency of the reference documents that panels use to interpret the criteria.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by NASM
Decision of	06/06/2016
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	clarity in decision making
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (23/11/2024)
RC decision	Compliance

“The External Review Report did not address in detail the clarity and transparency of the decision-making process in those cases where the MusiQuE Board’s decision differs from the experts’ recommendation.The Register Committee considered the clarification received from the Review Panel (Annex 7), explaining that the Panel had analysed the process followed in case the MusiQuE Board requires clarification or disagrees with the recommendation of the experts, and found that process adequate, clear and transparent.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/10/2023
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	lack of a body to ensure consistency of outcomes
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“14. The Register Committee understood from the review panel’s analysis that there is no independent commission that reviews and checks all reports and their application across the agency, which may question whether criteria are being applied uniformly.

15. The Register Committee concurs with the panel’s recommendation that QAA should strongly reflect on its approach to ensuring the consistency of outcomes including the potential need to establish an independent commission that validates reports and makes the final decision.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	25/10/2022
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	lack of formal mechanisms for consistency, unclear whether or not consistency improved
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“12. The panel considered critically the lack of formal mechanisms to ensure a consistent understanding and application of the criteria (e.g. guidelines, interpretations or a precedent database made available by GAC).

13. The panel was unable to draw a conclusion whether the post-2018 system – with decisions made by GAC, including the practice to change conditions deviating from the proposal by the expert panels – actually delivered a higher degree of consistency or not.

14. The panel further noted that the current organisation of the Council's work included the risk that analysis of cases might often be “monopolised” in the hands of a single (academic) Council member, while some other Council members are currently not participating in the preparatory work as rapporteurs.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Focused, coordinated by ECA
Decision of	18/03/2021
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	consistency of decisions
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (16/03/2021)
RC decision	Compliance

“12. The panel was convinced that EQ-Arts had “developed a sound approach to guarantee fair and transparent decisions and judgments”; it noted that consistency was ensured by a template with guidelines, the executive officer supporting each expert team and the Board considering each report.

13. [...] In its response, the panel elaborated on the measures taken to ensure consistency and how reviewers are being familiarised with them in EQ-Arts' trainings. The panel explained how it triangulated the information received from the reviewers, the reviewed institutions and the EQ-Arts Board. The panel confirmed that there was a “consistent understanding of procedure and process”. Based on the increased amount of activities, the panel was satisfied that EQ-Arts criteria were applied consistently, irrespective of whether the process leads to a formal decision by the Board.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	publication of procedures; Criteria are not applied consistently; Lack of consistency in decision making
Panel conclusion	Non-compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In its decision of inclusion, the Register Committee flagged AKKORK’s publication of detailed criteria for all its procedures. In its additional representation AKKORK stated that the detailed procedures and criteria for decisions have now been published. The Register Committee could verify that that the criteria are now published. The panel learned that in many cases experts relied on their personal review experience, rather than following AKKORK’s guidelines and methodology, and that AKKORK’s criteria were not applied consistently in the agency’s decision making. According to AKKORK’s revised Guidelines for Reviewers on Conducting External Evaluation of Education Quality and Quality Assurance at Programme level (adopted as of 30/01/2020), experts are expected to follow a clear methodology in their evaluation, and not their personal review experience. In its additional information to the review report, AKKORK stated that its decision-making criteria had been checked for consistency following its external review. The agency further provided a mapping of the scale for its decision making on programme accreditation ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	Lack of consistency in its decision making
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel’s analysis show that while the standards and criteria for accreditations are explicit and published, there are no clear deliberation rules detailing the basis upon which a specific decision is made and therefore concluded that consistency may not always be assured. In its response to the review report, CTI stated that it has taken a number of steps towards more consistency i.e. developing a new reporting template and updating its compliance table. The agency further declared that it will revise its rules for decision making for its different types of evaluation procedures following the analysis of its decision-making (after January 2020). The Register Committee welcomed the steps taken by the agency to address the shortcomings in ensuring consistency in its decision making but noted that the changes have not yet come into effect. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel’s conclusion that CTI complies only partially with ESG 2.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ECA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	limited track record, issues in one specific case
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (19/11/2018)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“24. The Register Committee considered that there was a limited body of practical experience, even considering the track record built up under ELIA, as EQ-Arts has so far – as pointed out in the panel’s clarification – in its evaluations only “applied criteria in collaborative agreement with those of other bodies in all except the single enhancement carried out in 2017”. Moreover, EQ-Arts (and neither ELIA) has never made any formal assessment decisions itself.

25. The Committee noted the panel’s discussion of the one review carried out in Kazakhstan (see under ESG 3.3), which raised questions whether the agency had applied criteria in a consistent manner.

27. The Register Committee, however, concluded that EQ-Arts did not allay the concerns that stem from the review in Kazakhstan. Despite EQ-Arts' certainly larger track record of critical friend reviews, the review in Kazakhstan represents half of EQ-Arts’ total track record in terms of formal assessments.

28. Given the limited evidence for formal assessments and the fact that the review panel appeared to have had concerns in one out of the two formal assessments carried out so far, the Register Committee remained unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion, but considered that EQ-Arts only partially complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/11/2017
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	decision making
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its decision of inclusion, the Register Committee flagged the decision-making processes of the agency for accreditation and the practice in which accreditation decisions are taken by a single person (the Director).The panel noted that accreditation decisions are taken by the SKVC director upon advice of one of the two advisory commissions. In the view of the panel the role of the advisory commission should be limited to checking the reliability of the outcomes of the evaluation, leaving the final decision to the director to avoid unnecessary costly and complicated processes.The Committee nevertheless underlined the panel’s recommendation concerning the improvement of the agency’s criteria for programme accreditation with more elaborate definitions of its scores.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	Publishing of the criteria for international institutional accreditation
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (23/11/2024)
RC decision	Compliance

“The review panel noted that AQAS's criteria for international institutional accreditation were not published at the time of the review. The Register Committee took note of AQAS' statement on the review report and that AQAS now published the criteria for international institutional accreditation on its website. The Register Committee further noted that AQAS published the criteria without the additional “indicators”, which illustrates what is covered by a criterion. The Committee sought and received clarification by the review panel as to whether it considered publication without the “indicators” as sufficient. The Register Committee took note of the explanation that due to plagiarism and copyright infringements experienced in the past, AQAS published the criteria without additional, detailed material, while the “indicators” were made available to institutions applying for accreditation.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	lack of transparency in criteria for awarding the premium seal
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In the decision of renewal of FIBAA’s registration, the Register Committee flagged for attention the lack of transparency in the agency’s criteria for awarding the “FIBAA Premium” seal to accredited programmes.The panel noted that FIBAA has made improvements to the transparency of its procedure, including to the criteria for awarding the premium seal. The panel, however, underlined that the weighing of the criteria is not sufficiently transparent as this information it is not made accessible for external parties (in particular to higher education institutions).

In its statement to the review report the agency stated that weighing for the criteria for awarding the premium seal (along with the other criteria) are published on the homepage of FIBAA. The Register Committee was able to verify this information and therefore concluded that the agency has addressed the flag. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	difference in reports regarding recommendations and level of compliance/Inconsistencies between the provisions for programme accreditation and institutional accreditation,
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel noted some inconsistencies between the provisions for programme accreditation and institutional accreditation, i.e. the IQAA Accreditation Council can only modify the points awarded for decisions in case of programme accreditation but not for institutional accreditation. The panel further noted that it is not always clear how the number and weight of recommendations is linked to the compliance levels of each standard i.e. some reports may include recommendations or critical comments, while other reports do not although in both cases the standard is considered ‘fully compliant’. The panel considered this was a result of the fact that the guidelines for experts are not sufficiently precise. The panel recommended a revision of the agency’s decision-making algorithm, in particular a clarification of the minimum requirements to be fulfilled by higher education institutions and the acceptable shortcomings for each of the four levels of compliance within IQAA’s accreditation standards.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	consistency in decision making across different technical committees.
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In the previous renewal of ACQUIN’s registration, EQAR had flagged for attention “ whether measures have been taken to enhance consistency in decision-making across different technical committees”. The panel reported that it had discussed the consistency of evaluations and decisions by ACQUIN in detail during the site visit. The panel established that no structural change had been implemented to improve the situation since the last review. While the report refers to one formal meeting between the chairs of the standing committees in 2014, such meetings do not seem to be institutionalised and regular. Given the assessment by the panel, the Register Committee concluded that the flag was not resolved”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	consistency and clarity of the criteria
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel’s analysis showed that the agency’s criteria are unclear with regard to the period of institutional accreditation. The accreditation is given for a period of up to five years, but there is no specification in which cases the accreditation period will be shorter than five years. In its clarification to the additional representation (letter of 02/05/2017) ECCE stated that it had developed a “Compliance Table” and a list of the critical standards to assist panels as well as institutions to understand the expectation of each standard. ECCE expects to formally adopt this practice at their general meeting in November

2017. While the Register Committee acknowledge ECCE’s plans of a new set of criteria to ensure consistency and clarity in the application of criteria, the Committee noted that the agency has neither published the ‘Compliance Table’ nor formalised this practice.”

Full decision: see agency register entry