Despite the critical role credentialing plays in assuring quality, maintaining standards and assessing competence among professionals, many aspects of credentialing are frequently misunderstood. These misconceptions lead to confusion, miscommunication and unrealistic expectations among stakeholders. Whether you are new to the industry or find yourself needing to educate others, this article will debunk five common myths and provide fact-based explanations behind the truth so that you can respond to these common misconceptions with confidence and clarity.

Myth #1: Certificates, certifications and licensures are the same thing, and terms can be used interchangeably.

Fact:  All of these are very different!

Licensure programs are mandatory, often issued by states or other governing bodies. Without a license, one would not be legally allowed to practice. In comparison, most certification programs and certificate programs are voluntary and are offered through private entities. Though a certificate program can be assessment-based — i.e., an exam must be passed at the end — it is not the same as certification. The National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) document “Defining Features of Quality Certification and Assessment-Based Certificate Programs” highlights many of the most important differences between them. One of the biggest distinctions is that certificate programs provide education, instruction and training on learning objectives. These evaluate someone on their level of achievement of the learning objectives, whereas certification focuses on an independent assessment of someone’s knowledge, skills and abilities required for effective performance in a professional role for which the individual has met established educational and experience requirements. Certification is time-limited, meaning that certification can expire or lapse. Individuals are subject to recertification to maintain the credential. While some assessment-based certificate programs may also require renewal, it is not typically mandated.

One of the biggest misconceptions encountered is the idea that someone who has completed a certificate program can refer to themselves as being “certified.” Credentialing organizations need to educate on why certificate and certification cannot be used interchangeably. While certificate holders can say they hold a certificate, they are not able to represent themselves as being certified and are not able to use a certification mark. By doing so, it misrepresents their qualifications and falsely presents themselves as having met the education, experience and assessment standards required to earn certification. It also undermines the integrity and value of the certification program and can mislead and break the trust of the populations served, who rely on certification status when selecting practitioners.

Other distinctions between certification and certificate programs include factors such as the governance structure, firewalls between education and testing, exam development and standard setting requirements, and the methodology and frequency of a job analysis. The National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) document “Defining Features of Quality Certification and Assessment-Based Certificate Programs” is a great resource to find more information on these distinctions.

Myth #2: Candidates can be compared by scores — rank ordering by score is useful for making hiring decisions, promotions and bonuses.

Fact:  Higher passing scores do not imply greater competence than lower passing scores.

Credentialing organizations have a responsibility to ensure that stakeholders clearly understand the purpose of the credential and the appropriate interpretation of exam scores. When the purpose of the examination is to assess mastery of the content, exam scores are intended solely to indicate whether a candidate has demonstrated sufficient mastery to meet the passing standard. Higher passing scores do not imply greater competence than lower passing scores. Since the passing score is a threshold, drawing inferences beyond this threshold — i.e., making promotion/hiring decisions, ranking candidates by score or awarding bonuses for those who achieve a certain score — constitutes a misinterpretation of the score and misuse of exam results. To avoid misinterpretation, some organizations opt to report only a passing status without the individual’s actual score. Providing clear guidance on the appropriate interpretation and proper use of exam scores, along with examples of misuse, can help educate stakeholders and maintain the integrity of the credential.

Myth #3: Certification is forever. Once you’re certified, you’re always certified.

Fact: Certification is time-limited and can lapse or expire if not maintained.

Initial certification indicates that someone has demonstrated adequate mastery for effective performance at that time, but recertification indicates that an individual has remained up to date and has maintained an acceptable level of mastery after initial certification. Certified status will expire unless established recertification requirements are met. Recertification requirements should have a rationale that supports the purpose of the program, and formal policies and procedures should be in place prohibiting those with lapsed credentials from using the credential mark.

The most common pathway to recertification is earning continuing education credits by engaging in professional development activities such as attending webinars and conferences, writing articles, doing research, etc. Other common methods include passing the exam again, submitting a portfolio, completing a simulation or submitting a self-assessment. Individuals awarded the credential indefinitely would not be subject to this same ongoing evaluation, providing no assurance that they are remaining current within evolving standards of practice.

Myth #4: Long-time industry experts should be awarded the certification without having to meet eligibility requirements or without having to pass the assessment.

Fact: To maintain the integrity of the certification program, certification must be earned through meeting the established eligibility and assessment criteria for all credential holders, so that the certification consistently represents the same professional standards.

In any industry, there are long-time, seasoned experts who helped shape the profession. While their expertise is respected, awarding them certification without going through the full process and maintaining recertification requirements raises serious concerns about fairness.

A legacy process — formally known as grandfathering — is defined by NCCA in the Basic Guide to Credentialing Terminology, 2^nd ed., as “the process by which individuals are granted a credential without certification without being required to meet the examination and/or other credentialing requirements.” Some programs may do this when the credential is first launched, since those involved in developing the exam would not be eligible to take the exam they have created. However, even in this case, the credential should only be awarded for a finite period, and legacy individuals should be required to pass the examination — one that they did not have a role in creating — in the future. This practice also should not continue after the initial examination has been developed.

Some organizations can recognize long-term industry experts, especially those who have retired or have an emeritus status. However, this is different from certification and must be given a different title and mark. Recipients are prohibited from using their previous credential designation. This is a critical step to eliminate confusion between the designations so that one does not mistakenly equate emeritus recipients with those who hold the certification.

It is important to consider that part of the eligibility for earning a credential is passing the exam, and requirements for maintaining the credential are by demonstrating continued competence through recertification. Granting certification to someone who has not passed the exam and/or exempting someone from recertification indicates that not all credential holders are being held to the same standards.

Myth #5: If an exam is given by computer, the score should be available immediately.

Fact: While immediate scoring is supported by computer-based exams, it may not always be the most appropriate option.

There are many factors credentialing organizations consider before releasing scores, and each will have its own process to ensure fairness, accuracy, reliability and validity. For example, rigorous quality control measures are initiated to identify irregularities in test administration and scoring. Post-exam forensic and psychometric analyses are conducted at both the exam level and individual item level. If any anomalies or potential item flaws are detected, organizations must investigate and resolve them before releasing final scores. For some programs, statistical requirements — such as calibrating items or using a post-exam equating methodology — require data from the full testing cohort to be aggregated and analyzed, making instant scoring infeasible. Instant scoring is often used for programs with high candidate volume that use previous item performance data to predict performance. For low-volume programs, there might not be enough data to rely on for defensible decisions about item quality and passing standards. Even for programs that offer instant scoring, many note that results are preliminary until official scores are released. This allows organizations to complete necessary quality assurance procedures before finalizing results.

Conclusion

This article focused on debunking five common myths in credentialing, but there are many more that we may encounter in our day-to-day lives as credentialing professionals. It is important to call out misconceptions when they arise and ensure that proper communication and ongoing education is prioritized to set the record straight and prevent the myths from spreading and continuing to misinform. In doing so, credentialing professionals not only build trust and integrity within the programs they manage but also help elevate the credibility and value of credentialing as a whole. 

Disclosure: During our brainstorming stage, we checked with ChatGPT to see what it identified as common credentialing myths. We had already identified the myths in the article, but it was nice to see that many of the myths we identified were also recognized by AI.

Did you enjoy this article? I.C.E. provides education, networking and other resources for individuals who work in and serve the credentialing industry. Learn about the benefits of joining I.C.E. today. And if you enjoyed, share this article with a friend or on your social media page.