Whose priorities shape digital assessment quality?

Updated Sep 07, 2026

Different stakeholders can value an assessment feature while understanding it differently. Sandris Zeivots and colleagues explore these perspectives in Australian business education.

What the study covers

Interviews and focus groups involved 46 participants from five groups: students, educators, employers, accrediting bodies and institutional policy-makers. A subsequent survey received 203 responses; 201 entered quantitative analysis because the two accrediting-body responses were excluded from those comparisons.

The study extends a digital-assessment framework by making purpose explicit and adding technology. It considers feedback, integrity, student experience and authenticity together. Participants could agree that authenticity mattered while differing over its meaning, including workplace relevance and educational purpose.

The authors encourage dialogue and shared responsibility when designing assessment. This is framework development informed by stakeholder evidence, not a trial showing that co-design reduces complaints or improves learning.

Publisher-indexed methods and discussion were accessible, but complete comparison tables were not retrieved. The retained account avoids unverified statistical contrasts. The respondents and Australian business-education setting also limit generalisation.

An editorial application

When reviewing an assessment, ask each relevant group what its purpose and quality criteria mean in practice. Record competing requirements and explain decisions, including constraints on access and delivery.

Use student accounts to inform that conversation and evaluate resulting changes directly. Do not assume that agreement on a label means agreement about the experience it should produce.

Reference

Sandris Zeivots, Sue Wright, Lynne Harris, Andrew Cram, Elaine Huber, Corina Raduescu, Amanda White and Andrew Brodzeli. “Walking the tightrope of quality assessment: balancing perspectives and priorities of stakeholder groups.” Studies in Higher Education. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2026.2619909.

Corrected 7 September 2026: the previous byline was incorrect and incomplete. This limited-access revision also clarifies the sample and removes unverified group comparisons and intervention-effect claims.