The twelve criteria
What is judged, and at what standard
Every criterion with the behaviour that meets it, the evidence that proves it, and the common miss.
Twelve criteria in four domains. Each one states what is judged, what meeting it looks like, the evidence accepted, and the miss that most often costs a mark.
Read the "meets it" line as the pass standard. The "common miss" is what an assessor sees when a person has understood the page but not practised the behaviour.
Domain A: understanding the study
A1. Explain the study in plain language
Judged: can the person tell a community member what the study is for, what taking part involves, and what happens to the data, without jargon?
Meets it: a two-minute explanation with no unexplained term, correct on purpose, time, payment and data, and a check that the listener understood.
Evidence: portfolio item 1, or the opening of the observed invitation conversation.
Common miss: reciting the participant information sheet. The test is whether a person who has never heard of the study could repeat the purpose back.
A2. Describe the question, the design and the data
Judged: does the person know what is being asked, how it will be answered, and what will happen to what participants give?
Meets it: names the question, the method, who is eligible, the data type, the storage route, and the analysis approach in outline.
Evidence: knowledge check, plus a short answer in supervision.
Common miss: knowing the tasks but not the question. A person who cannot state the question cannot judge when a recruitment approach has drifted away from it.
A3. Identify what the role can and cannot influence
Judged: can the person say truthfully where the post sits on the ladder of participation?
Meets it: names at least three things they can change, one thing they cannot, and the route for proposing a change to the second.
Evidence: written answer, and the conversation with the supervisor at induction.
Common miss: claiming influence the post does not have, or accepting a post with none and calling it co-production.
Domain B: ethical and safe practice
B4. Take valid informed consent
Judged: can the person obtain consent that is informed, voluntary, capacitous and recorded, or explain correctly why consent is not required?
Meets it: all four parts present, capacity supported rather than tested, no pressure, the record completed in the approved form, and the involvement versus research distinction applied correctly.
Evidence: observed invitation conversation, or a role-play of consent within the mock group.
Common miss: asking "do you understand" instead of checking understanding, and treating a signature as consent.
B5. Apply confidentiality, its limits and the safeguarding route
Judged: does the person state the limits before data collection, and follow the route when a disclosure comes?
Meets it: states the limits in plain words at the start; on a disclosure, tells the person what will happen, records in the person's words, refers the same day, and does not investigate.
Evidence: observed group, where the actor discloses a safeguarding concern; plus a written escalation card in the portfolio.
Common miss: promising secrecy, or deferring the referral to "after the session".
B6. Handle data lawfully
Judged: does the person use the approved systems, name files correctly, separate consent records, and report an incident?
Meets it: correct file naming, correct storage, no personal device without written approval, and an accurate same-day incident report in a scenario.
Evidence: knowledge check scenario, and the audit trail entry for the observed session.
Common miss: knowing the rules and then using a personal phone because the study device failed, without telling anyone.
Domain C: community engagement and communication
C7. Reach beyond the existing network
Judged: does the recruitment plan reach the people the study most needs, not only the well connected?
Meets it: the four lists completed, at least three named channels, at least one aimed at people outside the link worker's own network, barriers named with a fix for each, and a log format.
Evidence: portfolio item 2, and the actual recruitment log from supervised practice.
Common miss: a list of channels with no reasoning about who each one misses.
C8. Hold an invitation conversation without pressure
Judged: can the person invite clearly and let the person decide?
Meets it: the five steps in order, a clear statement that no is fine, no second ask, a way to decline without speaking to the link worker, and the person's questions answered honestly including the limits of the role.
Evidence: observed task 1.
Common miss: over-persuading because the person is known to the link worker, and answering a clinical question rather than redirecting it.
C9. Facilitate so quiet voices are heard
Judged: can the person cover the guide while keeping the room open?
Meets it: the guide's key questions covered, airtime distributed, one dominant voice managed with a format change rather than a rebuke, silence tolerated, the close summarised, and next steps stated.
Evidence: observed task 2.
Common miss: letting the articulate participant carry the session, and rushing the last question because time ran short.
Domain D: working in the team
D10. Contribute an interpretation, with evidence
Judged: does the person offer a reading of the data that is specific, evidenced and culturally informed?
Meets it: takes a draft theme, states what is wrong or incomplete, gives the evidence, offers alternative wording, and asks for a check against the cases that do not fit.
Evidence: portfolio item 3.
Common miss: disagreeing without a reason, or writing in a register the community would not use.
D11. Raise a conflict through the agreed route
Judged: does the person bring a community and study conflict to the right place, with a proposal?
Meets it: names the conflict, separates observation from interpretation, proposes two options, takes it to supervision, and reports the decision back to the community.
Evidence: a written case from supervised practice, discussed in supervision.
Common miss: absorbing the conflict personally and telling nobody, or promising the community an outcome before the team has decided.
D12. Work within the agreement, and refuse what is outside it
Judged: does the person keep to hours and tasks, and refuse a task outside training or agreement correctly?
Meets it: states the limit, offers what they can do, puts the decision where it belongs, and records the exchange.
Evidence: observed refusal within one of the practice tasks, or a written exchange in the portfolio.
Common miss: saying yes to protect the team, then doing the task badly or not at all.
How the twelve combine
Coverage rule
Every criterion must be met at least once, by some evidence. No single component is required to carry all twelve. The knowledge check carries A2, A3 and B6. The observed tasks carry A1, B4, B5, C8 and C9. The portfolio carries A1, A3, C7, D10, D11 and D12. Supervision evidence may carry A3, D11 and D12 where the workplace provides it.
If a criterion is met nowhere, the assessment is incomplete, not failed. Complete the missing evidence and return.