Candidate Volume & Completion — scoreable administration rate
Preferred≥ 98.5%
Watch97.0–98.4%
Review< 97.0%
CHSPS-CPDS-200 · Credential Performance Data Specification
CPDS: The Credential Performance Data Set
A common data language for credentialing performance. CPDS is designed to define what is measured, how it is calculated, where the data come from, how results are validated, and when a number is mature enough to be reported publicly.
Current status. CPDS 2026.1 is the published credential-performance specification. Empirical CHSPS benchmarks are released only after minimum validated reporting volume and governance approval; worked examples and CHSPS Reference Bands on this page demonstrate calculation and interpretation.
12core measures in Specification 2026.1
1annual reporting cycle using one locked specification version
2026.1controlled data and calculation specification
VPDindependent validation required before a result can carry a CHSPS-validated label
Why CPDS exists
A percentage is not comparable until the rules behind it are comparable.
Two certification programs can both report a “78% pass rate” while counting different candidates, excluding different administrations and using different reporting periods. CPDS is intended to make the definition, denominator, exclusions and data lineage visible before anyone compares the result.
1 · Define
One measure, one specification
Each measure identifies its numerator, denominator, exclusions, reporting period, data source, calculation rule and intended use.
2 · Trace
Source data must be auditable
A reported result should be traceable from the final number back through calculation and extraction to the underlying system of record.
3 · Validate
Self-reporting is not validation
The VPD framework is designed to test completeness, accuracy, exclusions, calculation and source-record agreement.
4 · Interpret
Context travels with the number
Diagnostic and rare-event measures are not turned into simplistic “higher is better” or “lower is better” rankings.
CPDS in one sentence: a standardized performance data model for credentialing programs in which the definition, source, calculation, validation status and interpretation rules travel with every reported result.
Core measure set
Twelve measures designed to describe performance without pretending one number defines quality.
The CPDS specification combines volume, assessment quality, fairness, security, timeliness, continuing-competence operations, complaints, verification and submission data quality. Measure definitions are controlled in 2026.1; VPD validation and governance determine whether results are eligible for empirical public benchmarking.
| ID | Measure | Use | Definition | Primary source evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CPD-01 | Candidate Volume & Completion | Context | Counts first attempts, completed administrations and scoreable administrations for the reporting year. | Registration, delivery and scoring systems |
| CPD-02 | First-Time Pass Rate | Performance | First-attempt candidates who pass ÷ all candidates with a first scoreable attempt, using only named exclusions. | Scoring system of record |
| CPD-03 | Score Reliability | Quality | Reliability estimate for each primary score or form family, with method and population disclosed. | Psychometric technical report |
| CPD-04 | Standard-Setting Currency | Context | Elapsed time since the study supporting the currently active passing standard, with material-change history. | Standard-setting report and approvals |
| CPD-05 | Material Exam Security Incident Rate | Rare event | Confirmed material security incidents per 1,000 completed administrations, accompanied by severity and response context. | Incident and investigation records |
| CPD-06 | Accommodation Timeliness & Delivery | Conformance | Approved requests decided within the published timeline and approved accommodations delivered as authorized. | Accommodation case records and delivery logs |
| CPD-07 | Appeal Rate & Overturn Share | Diagnostic | Appeals relative to eligible decisions, paired with the share resulting in a changed outcome. Neither component is ranked alone. | Appeal register and decision records |
| CPD-08 | Decision Timeliness | Service | Median and 90th-percentile elapsed time from a defined trigger to the credential decision, with external delays separated where possible. | Assessment and credentialing timestamps |
| CPD-09 | Renewal & Lapse Profile | Context | On-time renewal, late renewal, lapse and reinstatement among credential holders due for renewal in the period. | Credential-holder registry |
| CPD-10 | Complaint Rate & Resolution | Diagnostic | In-scope complaints per 1,000 active credential holders plus median and 90th-percentile resolution time. | Complaint register and case records |
| CPD-11 | Verification Responsiveness | Service | Complete third-party verification requests answered within the program's published service standard. | Verification logs |
| CPD-12 | Submission Data Quality & Traceability | Data quality | Required-field completeness and agreement between submitted values and a validation sample of source records. | Submission file, lineage records and validator sample |
These are controlled Specification 2026.1 definitions. Any change to names, formulas, exclusions, stratification rules, minimum denominators or intended-use categories is issued through versioned measure maintenance and a documented transition rule.
Selected indicators are shown below. The downloadable worked-example profile includes values or context for all 12 core measures so reviewers can inspect the controlled data structure end to end.
Make the context visible
A public profile should never show a number without its trust conditions.
A mature CPDS profile would pair the result with the specification version, reporting period, denominator, exclusions, validation state and any applicable suppression or qualification. Visual polish comes after methodological clarity.
See the validation methodologyCPD-011,842completed administrations
CPD-0278.6%first-time pass rate
CPD-030.89reported primary-form reliability
CPD-051.09material security incidents / 1,000 administrations
CPD-0698.2%approved accommodations delivered as authorized
CPD-082.4 dmedian decision time
CPD-0991.6%on-time renewal
CPD-1199.1%verification requests within published standard
Diagnostic measures
Numbers that require interpretation
Appeals26 / 1,805 eligible decisions = 1.44%
Overturn share4 / 26 appeals = 15.4%
Complaints11 / 5,210 active credential holders = 2.11 per 1,000
Complaint resolutionMedian 7 business days
A low appeal or complaint rate is not automatically “better.” It can reflect good performance, low awareness, inaccessible processes or classification differences. CPDS treats these as diagnostic signals.
Data quality
Validation would test the submission itself
Required-field completeness997 / 1,001 = 99.6%
Source-record sample agreement75 / 76 = 98.7%
Named exclusions37 voided/emergency terminations documented
Calculation versionCPDS 2026.1 logic locked for the cycle
The example deliberately separates completeness from source agreement instead of hiding both inside an unexplained composite “data quality score.”
How to read the example: 78.6% is not a CHSPS target and does not mean the worked-example program is good or bad. The value becomes useful only when the denominator is standardized, assessment quality is understood, data are validated, relevant strata are examined and an appropriate comparison population eventually exists.
Worked specification
CPD-02: First-Time Pass Rate
This example shows the minimum level of specificity CPDS is intended to require before a performance percentage can be compared.
Candidate specification
- Measure ID
- CPD-02
- Construct
- First-attempt assessment success among candidates with a scoreable first attempt in the reporting year.
- Numerator
- Candidates whose first scoreable attempt meets or exceeds the approved passing standard.
- Denominator
- All candidates with a first scoreable attempt during the reporting year, regardless of preparation route.
- Named exclusions
- Voided administrations and documented emergency terminations that do not produce a score; exclusions are counted and reported.
- Source
- Scoring system of record, linked to candidate and administration identifiers suitable for validation.
- Stratification candidates
- Delivery mode, form family and other technically justified strata, subject to minimum-reporting thresholds.
Worked calculation
1,024 first-attempt passes1,303 first scoreable attempts= 78.6%
Thirty-seven administrations were documented as voided or emergency terminations and therefore were not scoreable attempts. A validator would test whether those exclusions were permitted, complete and consistently applied.
What the percentage does not prove
- That the examination is sufficiently reliable or valid
- That eligibility criteria are appropriate
- That security controls are effective
- That one candidate population is comparable to another
- That a higher pass rate is inherently better
Data provenance
Every public result should be able to answer: “Where did this number come from?”
1Source eventexam, renewal, appeal, complaint, verification
2System of recordcontrolled operational record
3Extractionversioned data pull
4Calculationlocked CPDS specification
5Submissionnumerator, denominator, exclusions, strata
6Validationreperformance and source sampling
Version lock
An organization reports a cycle using one identified specification version. A later specification does not silently rewrite previously reported results.
Correction trail
Corrections should preserve the originally submitted value, the reason for correction, the revised value, authorization and validation outcome.
Minimum denominators
Comparative reporting requires measure-specific minimum denominators and suppression rules established through testing, not arbitrary small-number comparisons.
Annual reporting cadence
Validate first; compare only when the data support it.
The CPDS annual reporting model uses a locked specification version, defined submission window, independent validation, correction period and governed publication decision.
01Data year
January–December measurement period using the same specification version.
02Submission
Organizations submit results, denominators, exclusions, data lineage and attestations after year-end.
03Validation
Independent validators test lineage, calculation, completeness and selected source records.
04Confidential feedback
Early cycles are used to identify specification problems, burden, missingness and unintended incentives.
05Public use only when mature
A measure advances only when evidence supports the intended public, benchmark or recognition use.
Technical resources
Inspect the controlled data model.
These files support implementation of CPDS Specification 2026.1. Public performance claims remain subject to the VPD and publication rules.
CSV
CPDS 2026.1 Data DictionaryMeasure IDs, use category, definitions, data sources and interpretation notes.
CSVCPDS Submission TemplateControlled fields for numerator, denominator, exclusions, value, source and attestation.
CSVWorked Example Performance ProfileExample dataset used to demonstrate the CPDS reporting structure and calculations.
Minimum submission fields
- Organization and program identifiers
- Reporting period and CPDS specification version
- Measure ID and status
- Numerator, denominator and calculated result
- Exclusion and exception counts
- Required stratification fields
- Source system and extraction date
- Calculation timestamp and accountable attestation
- Validation outcome and correction history when applicable
What CPDS will not permit
- Calling self-reported results “CHSPS validated”
- Changing denominator definitions to improve a result
- Suppressing unfavorable eligible cases outside named rules
- Ranking diagnostic measures as if direction were obvious
- Comparing measures across different specification versions without reconciliation
- Publishing unstable small-denominator results as meaningful benchmarks
- Using a CPDS profile as a substitute for accreditation status
Publication discipline
A future public profile should show the result and its trust conditions together.
Result status
Self-reported, validation pending, validated reportable, validated with qualification, correction required or not reportable.
Specification status
Development, pilot, reporting-only, public reporting, benchmark eligible, suspended or retired.
Comparison status
No benchmark, confidential aggregate, public benchmark or recognition eligible — only after adequate validated volume exists.
Interpretation FAQ
Questions CPDS must answer clearly
CPDS is Specification 2026.1 for controlled credential-performance reporting. Empirical benchmarks and comparative ratings are governed separately and require qualified independently validated datasets.
No. A result may use a CHSPS validation label only after the applicable data and calculation pass the independent Validated Performance Data process.
No. Pass rate must be interpreted with eligibility, assessment design, score reliability, standard setting, candidate mix, security and other context. CPDS is intentionally designed to discourage single-number quality claims.
Organization-level results may be published only after the applicable validation method, data-volume rules, governance review and intended-use safeguards support public reporting. Empirical benchmark status requires the separate benchmark methodology.
Not sure where you fit?
Find Your PathwayFind your pathway in 30 seconds.
Answer one question about what you operate and see which accreditation fits — then start a free eligibility inquiry whenever you're ready.
CHSPS Reference Criteria 2026.1
A complete benchmark display model for CPDS 2026.1
These bands are published CHSPS technical reference values, not empirical CHSPS distributions. They let applicant dashboards, validator workflows and public-profile layouts be fully specified now.
First-Time Pass Rate
Context measureNo preferred direction — a pass rate is interpreted only with difficulty, cohort and standard-setting context
ReportedRate, cohort size and exclusions per CPDS 2026.1
Review triggerMaterial shifts prompt contextual review, not a band judgment
Score Reliability
Preferred≥ 0.85
Watch0.80–0.849
Review< 0.80
Standard-Setting Currency
PreferredCurrent supporting study documented
WatchReview due after material change
ReviewNo current supporting study
Material Exam Security Incident Rate
Preferred≤ 0.5 / 1,000
Watch0.51–1.50 / 1,000
Review> 1.50 / 1,000
Accommodation Timeliness & Delivery
Preferred≥ 98.5%
Watch96.0–98.4%
Review< 96.0%
Appeal Rate & Overturn Share
Context measureNo preferred direction — very low appeal rates can signal access barriers as readily as quality
ReportedAppeal rate and overturn share per CPDS 2026.1
Review triggerTrend and overturn-share shifts prompt contextual review
Decision Timeliness
Preferred≤ 7 business days
Watch8–14 business days
Review> 14 business days
Renewal & Lapse Profile — on-time renewal
Preferred≥ 95.0%
Watch90.0–94.9%
Review< 90.0%
Complaint Rate & Resolution
Preferred≤ 3.0 / 1,000
Watch3.1–6.0 / 1,000
Review> 6.0 / 1,000
Verification Responsiveness
Preferred≥ 99.0%
Watch97.0–98.9%
Review< 97.0%
Submission Data Quality & Traceability — source-record agreement
Preferred≥ 99.5%
Watch98.0–99.4%
Review< 98.0%
Interpretation safeguard. CHSPS Reference Criteria are reasoned technical references, not empirical industry benchmarks and not automatic accreditation thresholds unless a normative CHSPS standard expressly incorporates the value.