While the past practice of using the published exam and Examiner’s Report as the basis for providing feedback on an exam to the CAS will no longer be possible, candidates will continue to have an opportunity to provide feedback on potentially defective questions, including during the examination itself and immediately after submitting their exam. The new process for providing feedback on potentially defective questions is outlined in the new CAS Candidate Feedback and Grievances policy. The policy also includes new mechanisms for candidates to express concerns about their exam experience and to request a verification that a candidate’s responses were accurately collected.
A synopsis is given below; please see the policy for more details. If there is a discrepancy between the CAS Candidate Feedback and Grievances policy and synopsis below, the Policy rules will govern.
Candidate Feedback is a communication that triggers a review but does not require a formal response. Some feedback may be made anonymously, and some would require candidate details. Candidates are reminded to be professional in their feedback.
Candidates are encouraged to use the CAS feedback mechanisms to the fullest. The primary feedback mechanisms are as follows:
- Flagging items using the Flag for Comment feature during the examination within the Pearson VUE software. Note: Candidates should minimize the time spent offering feedback in this manner so as to not spend valuable exam time writing highly detailed feedback.
- Completing the Post-exam Questionnaire within the Pearson VUE software to provide comments on the exam items and exam administration immediately after the exam.
- Emailing the Administrative and Customer Support (ACS) department to provide feedback about the exam and the exam experience within one week of the exam if feedback is intended to influence grading
To the extent candidates suspect any items to be defective (such as items testing material not on the syllabus or items that cannot be answered with the information provided), such feedback may be provided through any of the above formats, but we encourage using the Post-exam Questionnaire for this purpose as candidates will have notes available (written on the Pearson notebooks).
Candidate feedback, plus robust item statistics, analysis of candidate responses, and other information, will be used to identify defective items and as input into the scoring and pass mark selection processes. All such inputs will be considered prior to the release of the exam results.
A Candidate Grievance is a submission that requires a formal review and response.
A candidate grievance is a candidate concern unrelated to the content of the exam itself. Candidate grievances trigger a formal review and response by the Admissions department. Candidate grievances are accepted on the following grounds and conditions:
Administration irregularities (noise, technology issues, etc.). Requests must be received within 5 business days of exam date.
Pearson VUE Case Numbers are assigned to any administration irregularity that may occur from the time a candidate checks in at the exam center to when they leave the exam center. Case Numbers are directly connected to the cited irregularity and should be included with feedback and grievances submissions to the CAS. Candidates who find themselves experiencing an administration irregularity should report the issue and ask the site administrator for the Case Number.
Recourse for administration irregularities depends on the severity of the disruption and if the candidate is able to complete the exam. The most common remedy for severe instances is exam rescheduling without fee during the next available exam window.
The grievance review process will occur in a constructive, impartial, and timely manner. A record of the grievance, including any subsequent action(s) taken and decisions made, will be maintained by the CAS. All information pertaining to the grievance will remain confidential.
A CAS representative will acknowledge receipt within three business days. Candidates will be notified of the outcome, or a reason for further delay in the outcome, within 30 days of the submission date.