Design an assessment brief that tests the intended skill, not formatting

Make an assessment brief accessible by removing barriers that are not part of the skill being assessed, while keeping every demand that is essential to that skill. Start by naming the intended knowledge or skill, then check whether each instruction, format and piece of source material helps learners demonstrate it. Ofqual’s guidance describes this as validity: an assessment task should measure what it is intended to measure. ([gov.uk](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ofqual-handbook/section-d-general-requirements-for-regulated-qualifications?utm_source=openai))

Begin with the skill, not the worksheet

Write the assessment purpose in one plain sentence before reviewing the brief. For example: “Learners will explain the stages of a workplace process in the correct order and describe why each stage matters.” That sentence gives reviewers a test for every feature of the task.

Ask: Would difficulty with this feature tell us something relevant about the intended skill? If not, it may be an unnecessary obstacle. Ofqual’s guidance says context should support the construct being assessed, and recommends considering whether language, layout, images and alternative formats could create irrelevant barriers. ([gov.uk](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ofqual-handbook/section-d-general-requirements-for-regulated-qualifications?utm_source=openai))

Example: explaining a process

Imagine the intended skill is explaining the steps in a process. The brief says:

“Having regard to the documentation supplied, synthesise a sequential account of the operational workflow, including all relevant contingencies, in accordance with the specifications below. Your response should demonstrate a comprehensive appreciation of the aforementioned procedures.”

The task may be asking for a straightforward explanation, but dense wording and several overlapping instructions make it harder to see what to do. Unless interpreting complex professional language is itself being assessed, this phrasing may add a reading demand unrelated to the target skill.

A clearer version could say:

“Explain the process in the order it happens. For each stage, say what happens and why it matters. Include the relevant exception described in the source material.”

This still assesses sequencing, explanation and use of relevant information. It removes wording that does not contribute to those demands. If learners are being assessed on their command of complex language, however, that language demand must remain part of the task; accessibility is not a reason to remove a genuine assessment objective. Ofqual explicitly distinguishes unnecessary obstacles from essential subject demands. ([gov.uk](https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-designing-and-developing-accessible-assessments/outcome/guidance-on-designing-and-developing-accessible-assessments-decisions?utm_source=openai))

A five-step brief review

1. State the construct. Name the knowledge, skill or understanding the learner must demonstrate. Avoid broad descriptions such as “show understanding” unless you define what evidence would demonstrate it.
2. Map each demand to the construct. Review command words, source materials, response format, time limits and any technical steps. Record why each demand is necessary. If a requirement does not support the intended measurement, consider removing or revising it.
3. Make instructions easier to navigate. Use direct wording, define specialist terms that are not being assessed, break multi-part instructions into numbered steps, and make the expected output visible. Use headings and a consistent layout rather than relying on colour or visual position alone.
4. Check access and alternatives. Consider whether the task works with relevant assistive technology and whether an alternative format or reasonable adjustment could preserve the same assessment demand. A chart, image or table may need a usable equivalent; its role in the task determines what can change. Ofqual advises considering how assistive technology and alternative formats will work with the assessment. ([gov.uk](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ofqual-handbook/section-d-general-requirements-for-regulated-qualifications?utm_source=openai))
5. Trial the brief with a colleague. Ask someone who did not write it to explain, in their own words, what learners must do and what evidence assessors should look for. Note where they hesitate, infer missing steps or interpret instructions differently. Revise the brief, then check that the marking criteria still match the intended skill.

Check clarity without changing the standard

Accessibility and standards are not opposites. The aim is to remove irrelevant barriers so learners can demonstrate the required knowledge and skills—not to reduce the level of attainment required. Ofqual describes reasonable adjustments as enabling learners to demonstrate knowledge, skills and understanding at the required level, and says alternative formats should be considered unless the assessment construct precludes them. ([gov.uk](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ofqual-handbook/section-d-general-requirements-for-regulated-qualifications?utm_source=openai))

For qualifications covered by JCQ guidance, check the current arrangements and your awarding organisation’s requirements when deciding on individual adjustments. JCQ’s 2025/26 guidance was updated in March 2026 and continues to apply during the 2026/27 academic year. ([jcq.org.uk](https://www.jcq.org.uk/exams-office/access-arrangements-and-reasonable-adjustments/?utm_source=openai))

Keep a short design record

For each brief, retain a simple note with the intended skill, the reasons for any essential format or language demands, the accessibility checks completed, and the changes made after colleague review. This gives tutors, assessors and quality-assurance colleagues a shared explanation of what the task is meant to measure.

If your team works from existing Word, PDF or Excel assessments, EduMark Flow is described on EduMark’s public site as a beta workflow connecting assessment documents with online learning, reviewed changes, marking and quality assurance. Review the source and output carefully during beta. For marking work, EduMark Studio connects evidence, criteria and feedback; human reviewers remain responsible for assessment decisions.

Sources and further reading

• Ofqual Handbook, Section D: General requirements for regulated qualifications
• Ofqual: Guidance on designing and developing accessible assessments—decisions
• JCQ: Access Arrangements, Reasonable Adjustments and Special Consideration