The assessment sector is entering a decisive phase. A trend is emerging: organisations are moving away from balanced hybrid approaches and committing more strongly to either online proctoring or test centre delivery. This polarisation reflects strategic necessity and the realities of malpractice, candidate expectations, and operational pressures.
A Market Moving to the Extremes
Polling at the 2025 E-ATP session Test Security 2025: Re-evaluating Online Proctoring and Test Centre Delivery offers a directional snapshot of this shift. Although the sample size was modest (12 participants), the responses echo wider conversations across the sector.
Today, delivery mixes vary: some are 100% centre-based, others fully online, with hybrids in between. The most common profiles remain a 50/50 hybrid split and pure test centre delivery. But looking two years ahead, the middle weakens; the 25% centres / 75% online profile disappears. Organisations cluster at the extremes: some expect to move to 100% online proctoring, while others expect to stay at 100% test centres (or near it). This reflects pressure to choose a primary path rather than maintain costly dual infrastructures.
From Candidate Experience to Security Reality
At TPAC, a good majority of ~30 organisations indicated they now offer online proctoring—up from only a handful pre-2020. The pandemic accelerated adoption, and for several years the priority was candidate experience: convenience, access, and flexibility. For those who have investigated malpractice, however, findings have been sobering: proxy testing (including AI-assisted impersonation), content leakage, and organised cheating networks are structural threats. Many organisations that uncover significant cheating trends simply cannot afford to retreat to centre-only models; their business models no longer support it.
Two Paths, Two Sets of Problems
Online proctoring excels on access and auditability (video, audio, screens, keystrokes), but creates more investigation workload. Test centres provide deterrence, physical checks, reduced candidate anxiety, and simpler accountability—yet remain data-poor. Even where cameras or audio exist, they are rarely integrated into the candidate record. You cannot instantly open a candidate’s centre-based test record and see/hear the session alongside results; investigations depend on third-party operators, introducing lag and limiting forensic depth.
The Vendor Conversation: Managing the Trade-offs
The Innovation Gap
Conclusion
Post-2020, candidate experience led decisions. Now, malpractice revelations are forcing reassessment. The market is polarising: access-first organisations double down on online proctoring; security-first organisations reaffirm centres. The old middle ground—costly dual infrastructures—is shrinking. Articulate your risks, candidate needs, and investigation capacity before vendor engagements. Start with the problem, not the product.
Explore Further