Choosing the Right Proctoring Method: A Standards-Based Approach

Understanding the Different Proctoring Methods

Live Online Proctoring (LOP)

Live proctoring offers human interaction, ensuring that an examiner can observe trainee behavior in real time. However, its effectiveness is limited by practical and financial constraints:

• Cost Considerations: To reduce expenses, companies often assign a single proctor to monitor multiple trainees. Some services operate on a 1:20 ratio—meaning one proctor supervises 40 feeds (20 user screens and 20 camera views). This compromises the ability to maintain meaningful oversight.
• Access Limitations: Live proctoring requires scheduling, restricting training availability to specific times and potentially delaying workforce deployment.
• Human Judgment: While proctors can intervene in real time, their ability to focus effectively diminishes with larger proctor-to-user ratios.

AI or AI-Assisted Proctoring

AI-based monitoring automates the oversight process, reducing costs and human intervention. However, it presents significant challenges:

• Lack of Discretion: AI lacks the contextual judgment to distinguish between legitimate and suspicious behaviors, leading to false positives or missed infractions.
• Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Concerns: Many AI-driven proctoring solutions are provided by third-party for-profit companies, increasing the risk of personal data misuse.
• Limited Effectiveness: AI struggles to detect off-camera assistance, subtle cues of dishonesty, and certain types of identity fraud.

Record-and-Review Proctoring

Record-and-review offers a middle ground by allowing trainees to complete training at any time while ensuring each session undergoes human review.

• 24/7 Accessibility: Workers can take training at any time, preventing scheduling delays.
• Complete Session Review: Every session is reviewed one-to-one by a human, providing the highest level of discretionary scrutiny.
• Delayed Intervention: Unlike live proctoring, immediate action is not possible, meaning flagged issues must be addressed post-session.

Defining the Right Outcomes Instead of Picking a Technology

Rather than choosing a proctoring method based on preference, organizations should define the necessary compliance outcomes. Historically, instructor-led training ensured:

1. Identity Verification – Confirming that the person completing the training is who they claim to be, using government-issued photo ID.
2. Continuous Monitoring – Ensuring that the same person completes the training without unauthorized assistance.
3. Prevention of Technological Manipulation – Blocking tools like GPT plug-ins that could fake participation.
4. Engagement Assurance – Preventing trainees from walking away, sleeping, or having someone else complete the training.

The ANSI/ASSP Z490.1 standard establishes the minimally acceptable level of compliance, specifically requiring:

• Verification of learner identity
• Confirmation of learner participation
• Ensuring that only the verified learner completes assessments and exercises

Key Considerations in Selecting a Proctoring Solution

Organizations should assess not just security and compliance but also operational feasibility. Considerations include:

• Training Accessibility: Does training need to be available 24/7 to avoid workforce delays?
• Financial Constraints: Is a low proctor-to-learner ratio financially viable?
• Device Compatibility: Should training be accessible via mobile devices and tablets?
• Software Restrictions: Are there concerns about installing monitoring software on work or personal devices?
• AI Bias and Accuracy: Has the AI model been trained on the monitored population to avoid bias?
• Immediate vs. Delayed Intervention: Is post-event review sufficient, or is real-time intervention necessary?

Moving Beyond Debate: A Call to Action

Instead of engaging in binary arguments over which method is superior, organizations should align their proctoring strategy with industry standards and operational realities. As a 30-year health and safety professional with experience in Canada, the US, the EU, and Australia, I have operated both an LMS/assessment company and a company specializing in online identity verification and learner monitoring technology. Today, I help organizations assess their proctoring needs by:

• Evaluating the capabilities of various tools
• Defining integrity objectives based on compliance requirements
• Interpreting regulatory and legislative standards
• Eliminating unnecessary constraints related to cost, support, time, and technology

If your organization is considering a proctoring solution, I encourage you to conduct a thorough needs assessment and select a method that ensures compliance while addressing financial and operational realities. By focusing on outcomes rather than technology, you can implement a solution that maintains training integrity while meeting your specific needs.