I would like to locate some tests to give our trained Internal Auditors.

Personally, I don't know if a structured test is good idea. It can be hard enough getting internal auditors (see Audit Teams - We have trouble keeping auditors (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=2346))

Adding a test requirement may scare some away.

I do think that performing a practice audit is probably the best test. Place them with a trained auditor for a practice audit and let the trained auditor critique and coach.

If you really want to test them, I think the best test would be to set up some audit scenarios and see how they find compliance or non-compliance. I use this technique during training...not really as a structured "test", but as a vehicle to open up some discussion during the training.

If your interested, let me know...I have these "discussion points" set up as Powerpoint slides and I could e-mail them.

[This message has been edited by Dan Larsen (edited 14 February 2001).]

I train my own internal auditors and use a test, and issue a registered certificate. This provides ample proof of competency for snooping external auditors, and gives the internal auditors something to include in their resume/CV package.

------------------

Who trained your internal auditors, was it done by you, an outside source?

If they were trained in house, I would just make up a test from the material you used in training them.

If they were trained by an outside source, I would assume they were tested by them, and you could always ask the trainer for a sample test.

I wouldn't just train them (class room type), test them and say ok you can do internal audits now. I would also have them do audits along side you until they can demonstrate proficiency.

Who is doing your internal audits now?

We do a "test", pre/post test, titled Name That Clause where we site a particular nonconfoamance, then have the participants identify what the ISO clause or sub clause is and why.

We also have a "script of dialog" between an of an audit process where the participants pick out not only the nonconforming situations but also particular auditor traits.ewtc.

we do role play and critique the auditor...I take the role of auditee and have fun with it, and control the play based on my "lesson" du jour.... Also do a real time audit together...no better test than the practical experience.

we do role play and critique the auditor...I take the role of auditee and have fun with it, and control the play based on my "lesson" du jour.... Also do a real time audit together...no better test than the practical experience.

Also have a crossword/word find puzzle program that I sometimes use...have also heard of a jeopardy game.........

This thread is kind of old, but something came up last week during an EMS (14001) Implementation course that I was delivering for my primary training client along the line of the discussion here.

We had been beating up 4.4.2 Training, awareness and competence pretty good and I was emphasizing that it applied for everyone to include Top management (with specific regard to the EMS) and the Internal Auditors, two frequently overlooked types of roles.

My student asked me specifically that if competence had to be shown, why are IA's not given an exam after a course as part being able to meet the requirement. She also specifically asked if I would administer an exam to the many and numerous people she will be sending to one of my next courses for this provider.

I got to thinking about what she said and it made sense. Now there is no way that a test can absolutely show competence, but it can indicate or prove a level understanding and ability similar to the exam given after a Lead Auditor course.

If you guys have your own program and are not currently testing the attendee' maybe you might want to re-visit this. Also take a gander at your courses and compare them to the specifications/guidance in ISO 19011:2002.

This concept of testing in some manner to determine competence makes sense to me, too. Good point, Randy!

If you are devising your own tests, let me suggest you revisit

"Six Levels of Cognition"
based on Bloom's Taxonomy (1956)

for a guideline on determining just how well your students comprehend the training. {Google "Bloom's taxonomy" for sources}

Probably the most pertinent level for many of us is Level 6:
Evaluation
Able to make judgments regarding the value of proposed ideas, solutions, methodologies, etc., by using appropriate criteria or standards to estimate accuracy, effectiveness, economic benefits, etc.

The cognitive domain is a good start, but you might want to also consider the affective domain, a taxonomy that organizes levels of commitment.

http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/affsys/affdom.html

Doug

This kind-of touches on something I am currently working on.

I am revising our training program to be a three phase program.

PHASE ONE - CLASSROOM TRAINING
Example would be sit and read the work instruction, answer a few questions (Open book Quiz) and record on a training record. This type of training is common place and only means that you have reviewed the material.

PHASE TWO - PRACTICAL TRAINING
Example would be the tell-show-do style. The lead man/woman or trainer would tell the employee how to do it, then show the employee how to do it, then observe the employee doing it. This level would show understanding and a basic level of competance. You will be considered trained at this level and be expected to perform the job with supervision.

PHASE THREE - QUALIFICATION TRAINING
Example would be the observation of the employee over a period of time performing the job. The supervisor or manager would then, based on performance qualify the employee in the training topic/task. This qualification would mean you are able to perform the task unsupervised, and you can also train others to do it starting with Phase One.

This is a quick summary of what I am thinking. Some people may only make it to Phase Two, but that is fine. Qualification is a higher level that would mean complete competance with the topic, to include the ability to train others in it.

So I would ask anyone that is willing to share their opinion, What do you think? :)

Howdy, folks:

From time to time, people who hire our 2-day internal auditing workshop will ask that I give an exam of some sort at the end of the session. I really don't care that much for the idea, but I got tired of saying no and came up with a short quiz. It's highly simplistic and a little silly, but it gets the job done. As many of you have said, nothing proves an auditor's competence like real audit experience. Feel free to use the attached quiz, or can make fun of me for authoring something so ridiculous.

CC

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Craig Cochran
Center for International Standards & Quality
Georgia Institute of Technology

My student asked me specifically that if competence had to be shown, why are IA's not given an exam after a course as part being able to meet the requirement. She also specifically asked if I would administer an exam to the many and numerous people she will be sending to one of my next courses for this provider.
I thought that an exam was required for RAB-accredited internal audit training courses. I have one at the end of 3-day classes I teach, but I can't share it here. It's not as rigorous as the exam for the lead auditor class, but it still covers some good ground.

Craig, I believe that questions like the last one on your quiz are the most effective, because they show that an auditor knows how to apply what they've learned.

I was refering to EMS not QMS in my previous entry guys....

I thought that an exam was required for RAB-accredited internal audit training courses. I have one at the end of 3-day classes I teach, but I can't share it here. It's not as rigorous as the exam for the lead auditor class, but it still covers some good ground.

Craig, I believe that questions like the last one on your quiz are the most effective, because they show that an auditor knows how to apply what they've learned.

I am in the process of putting together my Internal Auditor course exam using questions I gleaned from the ISO / ISTO web site & CQA Body of knowledge. The plan is to pre-test and post test and hopefully :vfunny: show the difference. My biggest concern is not so much training them to audit as it is in training them in the use of the core tools. Being in automotive and having to deal with the outfall of FoMoCo CSR section 4.39 is kind of a pain, and you all can guess where :biglaugh: Anyone have ideas on how to accomplish the core tools training short of aiag?

1. Audit team members should…(circle one below)
a. Argue publicly if they disagree
b. Cross-check their findings between themselves
c. Smoke Marlboros
d. Declare the severity of audit findings the moment the finding has been located

2. Upon entering a department, the auditor should…(circle one below)
a. Strike a menacing pose
b. Begin looking for problems
c. Let the supervisor or manager know that you’re in the area
d. Secretly check all desk drawers

3. Using a audit plan helps to…(circle one below)
a. Keep the audit on time and focused
b. Intimidate employees
c. Scare top management
d. Reinforce the notion of audits as a disciplinary tool

Do you seriously think that answering these types of questions makes for a better auditor? :bonk:

Energy,

Our 2-day internal auditing workshop is very intensive. It is almost completely exercise based, and the students are required to demonstrate effective auditing techniques and the ability to correctly write nonconformities repeatedly. Once they get to the end of the workshop, they're ready to start applying their skills.

The 'quiz' I posted is only given to appease customers who insist on having a test. It's not meant to be a gauge of anything. As I said, the students already demonstrated their ability to develop an audit plan, conduct an interview, evaluate evidence, write nonconformities, conduct opening and closing meetings, and write an audit report during the course itself. The quiz is not a normal part of the course, but just something I pull out when people insist on having an evaluation. By the way, our 2-day internal auditing workshop is not RAB-accredited, but our 5-day lead auditor course *is* RAB-accredited. You ought to see the exam that goes with that course. No jokes to be found.

Craig

Craig,

I'm sure. The ones I posted were hilarious, to me. Nothing else intended. :agree:

Energy,

I still hadn't drank my coffee this morning when I read your post. Sorry for jumping on you! :o

Craig

Energy,

I still hadn't drank my coffee this morning when I read your post. Sorry for jumping on you! :o

Craig
:topic: Happens to me all the time!! :vfunny: No problemo. Keep those downloads coming! :agree: