How it runs

• 24 multiple choice questions, drawn from the nine teaching pages.
• 45 minutes, taken online or on paper, open book.
• Pass mark: 80 per cent, so 19 of 24 correct.
• Two attempts, with a tutorial between them. The highest mark counts.
• Every answer is explained after submission. The explanation is the teaching, not the mark.
• Reasonable adjustments: extra time, a reader, an interpreter, or a spoken attempt, on request and without justification.

What it can and cannot show

It shows that you know the rules and the reasons. It cannot show that you can hold a conversation with a distressed participant, or notice that a sample has drifted. That is why there are two more components.

Two tasks, both observed live or on recording

1. The invitation conversation, 10 minutes. A trained actor plays a community member who is interested but hesitant. You explain the study, answer two concerns, and close without pressure. The actor is briefed to test one boundary: asking for clinical advice, or saying yes too quickly.
2. Co-facilitation, 30 minutes. You co-facilitate a mock focus group of four to six people on a benign topic, with a topic guide. The observer watches for coverage of the guide, airtime, management of a dominant voice, handling of a disclosure, and closing.

Scoring

• Each task is scored on the criteria it covers, using a 0 to 3 scale: 0 absent, 1 partial, 2 met, 3 met with judgement.
• A pass needs no criterion at 0, and at least 70 per cent of the available marks across both tasks.
• The observer writes a behaviour note for every mark. "Good rapport" is not a note. "Asked what the person was worried about before explaining the study" is.
• One resit of each task is allowed, after feedback and further practice.

Four items

1. A plain-language explanation of the study, written for a community audience, 400 to 600 words, or a recorded spoken version of three to five minutes.
2. A recruitment plan, with the four lists, three named channels, and the barriers you expect and how you will reduce them. 400 to 600 words.
3. An analysis note, taking one draft theme, judging whether it is supportable, and offering an alternative reading with evidence. 400 to 600 words.
4. A reflective log of at least six entries, one per teaching page, each covering what you did, what you noticed, what you would change. Five to ten lines each is enough.

Written work may be spoken, filmed, drawn with an explanatory note, or produced with an interpreter or a scribe, if writing is a barrier. The assessment judges the reasoning, not the spelling.

Who decides

• The trainer marks the knowledge check and observes the practice.
• The supervisor, who will hold the person in post, confirms the portfolio evidence and the workplace behaviours.
• A community partner representative reads the plain-language piece and the recruitment plan, and says whether either would work with their community.
• Moderation. A second assessor samples one in five assessments across a cohort. Any disagreement is resolved before certificates are issued.

Three signatures. No single person can pass or fail a link worker alone, and no academic can outvote the community partner on the question of whether the material would work in the community.

The certificate text, in substance

The holder has completed the community research link worker course and has been assessed against twelve criteria: [the criteria are listed by code]. Evidence: knowledge check [mark], two observed tasks, portfolio. Assessed by [names and roles], on [date]. This is a certificate of assessed completion issued by [organisation]. It is not a regulated qualification.

What that means in practice

• If a funder, a local authority or an employer requires an accredited certificate, the Level 2 Award is the realistic route. This course maps to it.
• If the requirement is evidence of competence for a supervised post, the assessed certificate from this course is sufficient and can be produced faster.
• Neither certificate makes anyone a link worker. Community standing does that.