Resource Center
Research, guides, and real-world insights on online proctoring; helping your program deliver results that are fair, trustworthy, and defensible.
10M+
Assessments secured
Zero
Data breaches in 12+ years
98%
Client retention rate
120+
Resources published
Featured article
Trust by Evidence: A New Framework for Defensible AI Decisions
4
min read
Integrity Advocate has released a new whitepaper, Trust by Evidence, introducing a framework that connects AI due process, learner rights, and credential security into one model for defensible AI-assisted assessment. This post walks through what the framework covers, why AI adoption alone no longer settles the integrity question, and links to the full whitepaper download.
All resources
The Best Honorlock Alternative is Integrity Advocate
January 22, 2025
|
9
min read
Institutions evaluating alternatives to Honorlock are weighing concerns about invasive live monitoring, mass data storage, Chrome-only compatibility, required browser extension installation, poor student experience, and premium pricing against the need for reliable exam security. This post compares Integrity Advocate and Honorlock across privacy practices, device compatibility, human review, LMS integration, ease of use, and pricing, and explains why institutions prioritizing privacy, simplicity, and fully human-reviewed sessions are making the switch.
The EU AI Act, GDPR, and What They Mean for Online Proctoring and Assessment Security
January 21, 2025
|
5
min read
The EU Artificial Intelligence Act and GDPR are reshaping expectations for how AI can be used in assessment environments, particularly when outcomes affect credentials, academic standing, or professional opportunities. Together they send a consistent signal: AI may support assessment security but it cannot replace human judgment. This post examines what each framework requires for high-risk AI uses in education and credentialing, what ATP guidance says about human oversight in proctoring, and what organizations can do to align with both regulations without adding unnecessary complexity to their programs.
OnDemand Webinar: Improving CEU Integrity in the Age of AI with IACET
December 4, 2024
|
1
min read
In November 2024, Integrity Advocate sat down with IACET president Randy Bowman to discuss how AI tools and GPT-powered plugins are changing the landscape of online continuing education. The conversation covered how emerging technologies compromise the integrity of accreditation standards, how to meet IACET standard 8.1 requirements for learner identity verification, how to document due diligence around genuine participation, and what recent court cases mean for organizational liability when training does not meet IACET standards.
Case Study: Smart Serve Ontario
September 26, 2024
|
2
min read
Smart Serve Ontario, Canada's only alcohol certification provider to proctor its exams, replaced an invasive, installation-based proctoring system with Integrity Advocate in 2019. The results: support contacts dropped to 0.01% of users, processing time fell to 10 to 12 minutes, and more than 99.9% of users now complete proctoring without requiring any assistance. This case study walks through the challenges, the solution, and what other certification organizations can learn from Smart Serve's transformation.
Safety Mentor and Integrity Advocate Are Teaming Up to Improve Continuing Education Programming
September 25, 2024
|
2
min read
Safety Mentor, an IACET-accredited training provider in the health, safety, and environmental sector, has partnered with Integrity Advocate to deliver verifiable online continuing education and training. The partnership addresses the growing threat of AI plugins completing CEU assessments without learner participation, and is designed to meet IACET requirements while maintaining a low-friction learner experience across all devices without installation.
Integrity Advocate and IACET Partner to Strengthen Continuing Education
September 24, 2024
|
2
min read
AI-powered plugins can now complete continuing education assessments automatically, creating a growing risk that CEUs are being awarded without genuine learner participation. Integrity Advocate and IACET are partnering to provide IACET member organizations with risk assessments and resources to identify vulnerabilities and implement identity verification and participation monitoring standards that protect the integrity of their programs.
Five Secrets to Integrity Advocate’s Industry-Leading Support
September 17, 2024
|
3
min read
Just 0.58% of Integrity Advocate learners required support during their exam last year. This post breaks down the five design decisions behind that number: no installation or plugins, full mobile and tablet compatibility, on-demand availability with no scheduling requirement, Privacy by Design data handling, and a simple interface that learners can navigate without assistance. For organizations running online exams at scale, each of these directly reduces the administrative burden and cost of support.
Online Alcohol Server Training and the Erosion of Trust
July 25, 2024
|
4
min read
Alcohol server training has significant public health value, supported by research showing statistically significant reductions in alcohol-related traffic crashes following implementation of compulsory server training. But as training moved online, the ability to verify who completed it largely disappeared. This post examines what unverified online alcohol server training means for public health, dram shop liability, and due diligence, and makes the case for verified training as the only standard that preserves the legal and public health value of the certification.
Integrity vs. Surveillance: Is Your Proctoring Tool Monitoring Learners or Surveilling Them?
July 2, 2024
|
4
min read
There is a meaningful difference between monitoring and surveillance in online proctoring, and most programs have not thought carefully about which one they are actually doing. Monitoring confirms identity, verifies participation, and produces a defensible result. Surveillance collects everything it can, flags anything it does not recognize, and leaves programs to sort out the noise. This post draws that distinction clearly, explains what privacy-first proctoring actually looks like in practice, and makes the case for why human review is the only thing that makes an assessment result genuinely defensible when it is challenged.
