Marking Criteria for Assessing Portfolios submitted for the Qualification in
Forensic Psychology (Stage 2)
Background & Guiding Principles
In the process of developing from an in-training to a chartered forensic psychologist,
a key issue is the assessment of competence through both practice examples and
integration of theory.
“A portfolio is a collection of evidence, usually in written form, of both the products
and processes of learning. It attests to achievement and personal and professional
development by providing critical analysis of its contents”
(Webb, Endacott, Gray, McMullan, Miller & Scholes, 2002; McMullan, 2008).
The checklist approach for assessing portfolios is inadequate and does not
sufficiently allow for the complexity and individuality of each portfolio.
The problems in assessing portfolios include:







Consistency & reliability
Inter rater moderation
Subjectivity vs. objectivity
The use of evidence
The use of reflective writing and commentaries
The use of marking criteria
Agreement on what is being assessed
The definitions of competence and therefore how this can be assessed differ greatly
amongst individuals.
Published marking criteria are often inadequate to encompass the complexities of
demonstrating practice outcomes or the application of theory to practice within a
specific context.
The key stages common to most practice and demonstration of competence in
applied psychology are:
Assessing – planning – implementing – evaluating
This cycle is demonstrating within the competencies of each of the Core Roles of the
Qualification. It is this cycle or process as well as the individual elements within it
which is of interest.
The Design of the Portfolio
Endacott, Gray, Jasper, McMullan, Scholes, & Webb (2004) identify 4 ‘models’ of
portfolios within nursing education which seem to generalise to other health settings.
1. Shopping Trolley: This portfolio contains anything and everything that has
been used or produced during the period of supervised practice. The file is
simply a set of documents with little analytical content or cohesion.
2. Toast Rack: This portfolio has a number of discrete elements that assess
different aspects of practice and/or theory. The folder itself acts as a useful
method of organising the submission into assessment headings but there is
no real cohesion overall.
3. Spinal Column: This portfolio is structured around the competencies, in a
similar way to the toast rack, with evidence slotted in behind each
competency ‘vertebra’ to demonstrate how each competency is met.
Analytical accounts tend to be included to show how the evidence meets the
competency. The evidence is there to support the narrative account.
4. Cake Mix: This portfolio is where the sum is more than the parts in what is
said about the candidate as a practitioner. The emphasis is on integration
with an overarching narrative. Only evidence included in that reflective
narrative is presented.
The portfolio should aim to fall somewhere between the spinal column and cake mix
approach to be demonstrating the standard required.
The basic components of portfolios are:
A statement of the learning outcomes
Reflective reviews/commentary discussing achievement
Evidence to support the claims made (primary/secondary etc)
Assessment Criteria
The operating assumption is that it is the totality of the portfolio that needs to fulfil the
marking criteria.
The presentation of the work and its organisation is critical in enabling an assessor
to determine whether it is of sufficient standard. The structure and intention of the
portfolio along with the outcome need to be clearly stated at the beginning of the
work.
The portfolio must contain a reflective review in which the candidate reviews the
portfolio content and makes a case for competence. It is this account which is
assessed as primary evidence alongside additional evidence (primary/secondary)
submitted to support the claims.
The evidence presented needs to be logically organised and referenced within this
narrative account.
Each criterion, where it applies, is presented as a separate statement. The criteria
are generic and present a standard against which the specific module outcomes can
be compared.
Standards of Presentation

The portfolio must have a coherent and obvious structure, be indexed and
cross referenced.

The portfolio should be typographically correct. Errors will result in a
maximum award of a conditional pass.

It should be written in standard English.

APA referencing system must be employed.

The portfolio should contain a signed copy (by Chief Supervisor) of the agreed
exemplar plan. Where this is not possible, clear explanation is required or
alternative submission such as an initial letter of acknowledgement from the
previous Chief Supervisor.

For submission, comb-binding is preferable to lever arch as it less likely to
split and mix the papers.

Standard margins should be used for the reflective report.

A font size no smaller than 12 point should be used for the reflective report.

The portfolio should be checked for confidentiality/anonymity of third parties.
Any 3rd party information will result in a maximum award of a conditional pass
and can be a sign of poor ethical practice, as well as breaching internal
organisational information sharing protocols.

A reflective narrative report is required to a maximum of 1000 words per
exemplar. This can be combined into one maximum 2000 word narrative
across a Core Role. Any submissions 10% above this will be returned
unmarked.
Presentation of evidence is considered extremely important in demonstrating the
ability to organise work to show that learning outcomes have been achieved. In the
past the Board of Assessors has been relatively lenient in reviewing poorly
presented and disorganised submissions to the benefit of some candidates. This is
not a practice which is expected to continue.
The nature of evidence
All those involved in the process are sometimes confused about what evidence is
required to support the statements made in the narrative. The Exemplar Plans (EPs)
provide a way of agreeing the type of evidence which will be submitted as a form of
planning for the trainee and supervisor. In many cases, the evidence originally listed
may not in fact be the best evidence to submit once the candidate develops the
narrative. Where this is the case, advice should be sought from the Chief
Supervisor. Assessors are expected to review the evidence submitted against the
EP. Where minor discrepancies exist, they are able to exercise their judgement if an
explanation is provided. Where no explanation and/or large discrepancies exist, the
exemplar/Core Role will not be assessed until clarification is obtained.
Both the spinal column and cake mix assume that only the evidence which is
referenced in the narrative, which is necessary to support statements needs to be
submitted as part of the portfolio evidence. In practice, many candidates for the
Qualificationhave understandably started with a more ‘shopping trolley’ evidence
presentation and have moved towards the toast rack. It is safe to say poor portfolios
have remained in the toast rack area of development and do not have sufficient
coherence or integration. A candidate should therefore consider what is useful
evidence to support the claims to competency in a particular area; for example –
what does a risk assessment report show – what elements of it are specifically
meeting the different competencies within Core Role 1? This should be highlighted
within the reflective report.
Case studies are often used as a means to assist candidates in achieving a cake mix
approach. An overall reflective report is still required to map aspects of the case
studies to the Qualificationguidance.
Assessing the Portfolio
Guiding Principles:

Each portfolio is unique to the individual and thus not amenable to
standardization.

The criteria can be used for both assessment and self assessment.

A grade is to be awarded of ‘distinction’ - ‘competence demonstrated’ –
‘conditional pass’ – ‘competence not yet demonstrated’.

The candidate and supervisor should be able to join these grades and
feedback together to identify strengths and weaknesses for the practitioner for
future professional practice and development.

The purpose of the Qualificationis to evidence the practice of those in training
to demonstrate that they are sufficiently competent to practice without
supervision. It is not expected that trainees will have no weaknesses, nor
developmental areas. Assessors must decide whether work is of an
acceptable standard which would benefit from feedback, advice and
guidance. In other words, the benchmark is “good enough” rather than
“perfect” or “near perfect”: it is recognised that individuals will continue to
develop. This judgement must be made across the Core Role, with strengths
in certain areas able to compensate for weaknesses in others.

A set of ‘criteria’ do exist. These are listed below:
o Each Core Role must demonstrate around 90-110 days worth of
practice diaries. Where this is not the case, the assessor must flag it in
the assessment report.
o Each Core Role must meet the majority of competencies. It is not
possible to say that a certain % must be met as it is the quality of the
overall submission, not merely meeting each competency, which is
relevant. The emphasis, it will be recalled, is on the individual making
an effective overall case for having demonstrated sufficient experience
and mastery of the Core Role.
o Where a competency is not attempted within an exemplar, this must
have been agreed in advance and be evidenced by the exemplar plan.
o The indicators within each competency in the guidance provide
examples of the sort of content expected within the competency. They
are not an exhaustive list, nor does a candidate have to meet a
particular proportion of the indicators. Again – it is the quality of the
submission overall, not the quantity of criteria hit. Substantial omissions
may weaken the case for completion, but this principle also means that
an arid, exhaustive “tick- box” approach is neither required nor
appropriate.
o Each submission must meet clerical and other presentational guidance.
o Each submission must meet the standards of ethical practice.
Concerns identified must be noted on the assessment report.
Candidates may be asked to attend to such issues. In some cases,
reference will be made to the supervisor regarding unethical practice.
o Guidance states that the supervision log entries should be signed by
the supervisor. If this is not the case, at the least an explanation as to
why not, and a letter from the supervisor confirming the entries as
accurate is required.
Marking Criteria
There are four levels of marks recognised by the British Psychological Society’s
Statutes. As these are defined in the Society’s generic regulations, they must be
adhered to by the Division of Forensic Psychology Board of Assessors.
Distinction:
Excellent work demonstrating the ability to work independently and competently
across all of the competencies required for this Core Role. The exemplars (including
the Practice Diary) demonstrate excellent organisation and provide a comprehensive
illustration of how the candidate meets all of the requirements. Evidence that the
candidate has employed a systematic approach to work undertaken and considered
ethical issues. The Supervision Log, Practice Diary and summary statement all
provide substantial evidence of reflective practice. Excellent presentation in
accordance with the standards set.
Competence Demonstrated:
Satisfactory work demonstrating an adequate level of potential to work competently
across the majority of competencies required for this Core Role. Work represented
in the exemplar is clearly of a forensic nature and provides evidence of depth and
breadth of experience. Evidence of reflective practice is provided through the
supervision log and practice diary or summary statement. Ethical guidelines have
been observed. Satisfactory presentation overall. Assessors may allow
weaknesses in some competencies to be compensated for by other areas of
strength.
Conditional Pass:
This mark is available only where clerical errors are identified, including issues such
as signatures required on the supervision log; editing or clarification of tables;
grammatical and typographical errors; referencing errors; any failure to anonymise
third parties . The conditional pass work must be re-submitted within one month:
hence recommendations for Conditional passes must be for clerical issues, and
rectifiable within one month. Conditional passes are not designed for additional
evidence collation/collection. Where this is wanted, the assessor should consider is
it really needed? If yes, then a fail must be awarded. If it is not essential, it can be
provided as a piece of advice and guidance as part of a pass report.
Competence Not Yet Demonstrated:
The work described in the exemplar is significantly flawed and demonstrates an
inadequate level of competence. The following issues may be grounds for failure:




Ignoring key areas for assessment and intervention (where such work is not to
be carried out, it should at least be recognised as a need/limitation)
Significant failure to observe ethical guidelines
Significantly flawed research or evaluation designs
Little or no evidence of reflective practice




Significant deviations from the exemplar plan (without sufficient explanation)
A lack of primary evidence (which can include the narrative account)
Insufficient time over the Core Role (whilst some slippage exists for the
amount of ‘days’ required for each exemplar within a Core Role, the rough
guide of 3 months per exemplar remains)
Presentation is poor and disorganised so that assessment is difficult.
The following tables provide a framework for considering Core Role submissions.
This is not intended to provide a marking scheme, but to assist in structuring the
thinking of candidates, supervisors and assessors of the process of Core Role and
practice completion.
Some of these ‘criteria’ will be more relevant than others for certain competencies.
For example, a candidate may well not demonstrate much ‘rationale’ in evidencing
their relationship management (1.3) although they may well show an awareness of
the goals and consequences of such relationship maintenance/importance. The
grids aim to assist in holistic decision making about the Core Role submission to
enable assessors to make an overall judgement about standard.
CORE ROLE ONE
Rationale: clarity, logic and relevance of reasoning
and decisions including awareness of goals, options,
consequences
Sensitivity to contextual issues:
awareness/incorporation of perspectives/concerns of
clients/others. Situational and other influences and
constraints. Ethical considerations
Technical understanding & use of sources: accurate
and appropriate identification and use of concepts,
comparisons and procedures drawn from a range of
well chosen primary & secondary sources/other
expert knowledge
Critical thinking: balanced & rigorous
evaluation/synthesis of theoretical aspects,
methodological issues and research evidence
Creativity & independence of thought: original thinking
in identifying, examining & integrating key issues and
generating new insights
Writing & presentation: in accordance with set out
requirements, coherent structure, development of
arguments, precise and lucid expression, professional
standards of grammar, spelling etc
Reflection: indications of learning incl awareness of
whether aspects could have been handled better,
making sense of experience, deriving implications for
future practice
Establishing requirement
for/benefit of
app/intervent.
Planning of
app/intervent
Establish/develop
maintain working rltnshps
Implement app/intervention
Direct implementation of
app/intervention
Evaluating results of
app/interventions
CORE ROLE TWO
Rationale: clarity, logic and relevance of reasoning and decisions including awareness of
goals, options, consequences
Sensitivity to contextual issues: awareness/incorporation of perspectives/concerns of
clients/others. Situational and other influences and constraints. Ethical considerations
Technical understanding & use of sources: accurate and appropriate identification and use
of concepts, comparisons and procedures drawn from a range of well chosen primary &
secondary sources/other expert knowledge
Critical thinking: balanced & rigorous evaluation/synthesis of theoretical aspects,
methodological issues and research evidence
Creativity & independence of thought: original thinking in identifying, examining &
integrating key issues and generating new insights
Writing & presentation: in accordance with set out requirements, coherent structure,
development of arguments, precise and lucid expression, professional standards of
grammar, spelling etc
Reflection: indications of learning incl awareness of whether aspects could have been
handled better, making sense of experience, deriving implications for future practice
Designing psychological research
activities
Conducting psychological research
activities
Evaluating and analysing psychological
research data
CORE ROLE THREE
Rationale: clarity, logic and
relevance of reasoning and
decisions including awareness of
goals, options, consequences
Sensitivity to contextual issues:
awareness/incorporation of
perspectives/concerns of
clients/others. Situational and
other influences and constraints.
Ethical considerations
Technical understanding & use of
sources: accurate and appropriate
identification and use of concepts,
comparisons and procedures
drawn from a range of well chosen
primary & secondary sources/other
expert knowledge
Critical thinking: balanced &
rigorous evaluation/synthesis of
theoretical aspects,
methodological issues and
research evidence
Creativity & independence of
thought: original thinking in
identifying, examining & integrating
key issues and generating new
insights
Writing & presentation: in
accordance with set out
requirements, coherent structure,
development of arguments,
precise and lucid expression,
professional standards of
grammar, spelling etc
Reflection: indications of learning
incl awareness of whether aspects
Promoting awareness of the
actual and potential
contribution s of applied
psychological services
Providing psychological
advice to assist and
inform problem solving
and decision making
Providing psychological
advice to aid the
formulation and
implementation of policy
Preparing and
presenting evidence in
formal settings
Responding to informal
requests for psychological
information
Providing feedback to
clients
could have been handled better,
making sense of experience,
deriving implications for future
practice
NB: Core Role 3 does not always have the coherence of the other Core Roles in terms of the cycle outlined at the start. Some of the columns might be mutually exclusive in a
given piece of work – a Core Role 3 portfolio may be more of a spinal column than a cake mix.. Competencies/columns 2, 5 and 6 would generally be expected no matter what
the specific application although competencies/columns 1, 3 and 4 may vary more in their delivery within the portfolio.
CORE ROLE FOUR
Identifying and analysing needs to
improve or prepare for job performance
Planning and design of training and
development programmes
Implementing training and development
programmes
Planning and implementing assessment
procedures for training and development
programmes
Rationale: clarity, logic and relevance of
reasoning and decisions including awareness of
goals, options, consequences
Sensitivity to contextual issues:
awareness/incorporation of
perspectives/concerns of clients/others.
Situational and other influences and constraints.
Ethical considerations
Technical understanding & use of sources:
accurate and appropriate identification and use
of concepts, comparisons and procedures drawn
from a range of well chosen primary & secondary
sources/other expert knowledge
Critical thinking: balanced & rigorous
evaluation/synthesis of theoretical aspects,
methodological issues and research evidence
Creativity & independence of thought: original
thinking in identifying, examining & integrating
key issues and generating new insights
Writing & presentation: in accordance with set
out requirements, coherent structure,
development of arguments, precise and lucid
expression, professional standards of grammar,
spelling etc
Reflection: indications of learning incl awareness
of whether aspects could have been handled
better, making sense of experience, deriving
implications for future practice
References and Suggested Reading:
Endacott, R., Gray, M., Jasper, K., McMullan, M., Scholes, J. and Webb, C. (2004) Using portfolios in the assessment of learning
and competence: the impact of four models. Nurse Education in Practice 4, 4: 250-257.
McMullan, M (2005) Competence and its assessment - a review of the literature. British Journal of Podiatry, May 2005; 8, 2: 49-52.
McMullan, M (2008) Using portfolios for clinical practice learning and assessment: The pre-registration nursing student’s
perspective. Nurse Education Today 28: 873-879.
Webb, C., Endacott, R., Gray, M., McMullan, M., Miller, C. and Scholes, J (2002) Models of Portfolios. Medical Education 36, 10:
897-898
Webb, C., Endacott, R., Gray, M., McMullan, M. and Scholes, J. (2003) Evaluating portfolio assessment systems: what are the
appropriate criteria? Nurse Education Today 23, 8: 600-609