Certification programs as a reflection of competency. (Legal).

Many nonprofit membership associations either sponsor or are affiliated with professional certification boards. In the context of professional certification, the question often arises as to whether certification equates with competence. In other words, does passing an examination and meeting other criteria for certification demonstrate that the certified individual is a competent professional? The issue can arise in malpractice or errors and omissions disputes. It has relevance in preparing promotional literature for the certification program. Or it can be a key issue in doing developmental or long-range planning for a certification program. The failure to accurately describe the scope of certification could ultimately lead to legal liability for a certification board or sponsoring association. In this article Jeff Glassie explains that conclusions about the competence of individual professionals cannot be reached based on certification status and, therefore, it is important to be cautious about claims made o r language used in describing related programs.

EDITED BY JERALD A. JACOBS

The legal meaning and ramifications of professional certification status are often debated. The Certification and Accreditation Law Handbook, by Jerald A. Jacobs (1992, ASAE), takes care to characterize certified individuals as those "who have been found to meet criteria of competence" rather than individuals who are "competent." The distinction is an important one.

Job and task analyses are designed to identify areas of knowledge and experience that would indicate competence in the given profession or task. Generally, the level of competence measured in a certification program is at a minimal or entry level, as opposed to a higher or achievement level. Therefore, any attempt to equate certification precisely with professional competence can be misleading.

Factors affecting the competency question

A number of issues lead to the conclusion that it is unwise to equate certification with competency.

1. Certification cannot guarantee or assure competence. It can only measure factors that tend to indicate competence, such as whether a candidate for certification is more or less likely to be competent. Further, attaining certification often reflects an individual's determination and diligence in seeking such status, undertaking the proper preparation, spending the time and money to apply, and so forth. Conversely, it is undeniable that many professionals who are universally recognized as competent by peers, clients, customers, or institutions have simply not sought certification in voluntary programs offered by nongovernmental organizations such as associations or boards affiliated with associations. In short, virtually no certification program has captured 100 percent of its potential market. For a program to represent without qualification that "certified individuals are competent" may often imply that those not certified are not competent; that too can be misleading.

2. It may not be possible in an examination setting to accurately and precisely measure competence. In fact, most individuals under-perform on certification examinations, because an examination is usually taken in such an artificial environment. In real life, individuals have time to think, ask colleagues or supervisors for advice, conduct research, tentatively try reversible approaches and correct them if they don't work, and so on. The added pressures of anxiety, time, and other stresses that do not correlate directly with everyday professional endeavors are also present. Even a passing score allows some level of incorrect answers, so the entire process is not susceptible to an unqualified characterization as an accurate measure of competence. The reasons a person failed an examination may be related to proficiency in reading or other language skills, rather than skill in the subject area. These factors are likely more relevant in areas of certification where manual skill is primary.

3. Little definitive guidance on whether certification equates with competence is available. In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court (in Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois, 496 U.S. 91. 101) did address the meaning of certification in an analogous context, where the issue was the permissibility of advertising a lawyer's specialty area of practice. The court said: "A claim of certification is not an unverifiable opinion of the ultimate quality of a lawyer's work or a promise of success, but is simply a fact, albeit one with multiple predicates, from which a consumer may or may not draw an inference of the likely qualities of an attorney's work in a given area of practice." A footnote to the Supreme Court's decision went on to say that "of course, many lawyers who do not have certification or do not publicize certification may, in fact, be more able than others who do claim such a credential." Thus, it is recognized that certification is only one factor in measuring competence, and it is by no means the determining factor.

4. An examination by itself, or even a list of qualifications and criteria, cannot accurately measure competence. If psychometrically sound, examinations can be merely predictive of a tendency within a range to show that a person has demonstrated the knowledge or skill considered by consensus as necessary to perform certain professional functions.

Implications for certification programs

Where does this leave professionals who may look to certification credentials to demonstrate that they are competent? Where does it leave employers or users of professional services who seek some assurance regarding the professional knowledge and skills of individuals? And what implications does it have for associations with certification or credentialing programs? In most cases, it should leave them in a comfortable position regarding certification. A tendency toward competence is quite valuable to all parties involved in providing, obtaining, or paying for professional services. Along with other indications of professional standing--references, experience, academic qualifications, firm reputation, awards, and the like--voluntary nongovernmental certification can be a crucial factor in determining what individuals to deal with.

Certification provides only a tendency toward, not a guarantee of, competence; but that is valuable in and of itself. It could legitimately lead some to deal exclusively with certified or credentialed professionals for employment, reimbursement, and other activities if only for reasons of convenience. But of course it should not lead anyone to conclude that only certified professionals are competent or that noncertifled professionals are incompetent. For associations, the focus on competence adds perceived value to their credentialing programs--but clearly does not give carte blanche to tout in promotional literature or other publications certification as a definitive measure of competence. Ultimately, the significant benefits of promoting professional, product, and service quality through certification outweigh the perceived possible liability risks.

Jefferson C. Glassie and Jerald A. Jacobs are partners at the law firm of Shaw Pittman, Washington, D.C. Jacobs edits this column and is general counsel to ASAE.