Fully Processed candidates - an analytical solution to the Post-Awarding Drift problem - Robert Hales

Oct 20, 2026

The study investigates Post-Awarding Drift (PAD), the shift in grade outcomes that occurs when additional candidates’ mark data becomes available after award. It analyzes the relationship between the Percentage Fully Processed (PFP), PAD, and a recommended Minimum Required PFP (MRPFP) originally proposed to reduce drift. Results provide an analytical explanation under practical assumptions and show MRPFP varies by unit size, with very large-entry units requiring less than 1% of MRPFP. Methods also support low-PFP decision making.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages22

Reading Time55 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Percentage Fully Processed (PFP) and incomplete mark availability

Grade boundaries, SRBs, and PAD at publication

Technological context: CMI+ and OnLine Awarding (OLA)

Centre for Education Research and Policy Fully Processed candidates: an analytical solution to the Post-Awarding Drift problem Robert Hales Abstract The number of candidates for whom mark data is available at the time of an award is less than the total entry in the vast majority of cases—the relative difference between these is referred to as the Percentage Fully Processed (PFP) . At some point between award and publication of results, the mark data for the additional candidates will become available and will have some effect on the percentage outcomes at each grade—the outcomes will drift, known as Post-Awarding Drift (PAD) . This effect has been the focus of previous studies, where empirical and simulation analyses were undertaken. These studies found some relationship between the PFP and PAD, which further resulted in a recommendation of lowering the minimally required PFP (MRPFP) at award from 85% to 70% across all speciﬁcations in order to avoid PAD (although 75% was ultimately chosen) . The aim of this study is to investigate PAD from an analytical perspective in order that this MRPFP might be chosen in a more substantiated way. The results show that the PAD as observed empirically or by simulation can be analytically explained, at the expense of making some practical assumptions, and that the MRPFP will vary from unit to unit. This is mainly driven by the size of the total entry so that in the extreme cases of very large-entry units ([e.g. total](e.g. total) entry of 400,000) the MRPFP is less than 1% . Additionally, the methodology was explored during the summer 2012 awarding series with the primary aim of facilitating decisions being made about units with low PFPs. Discussion is also provided around the use of additional information that is available during award preparation that can better inform the decisions made around the MRPFP. Introduction At the time of an award, not all candidates' marks will be available. Some marks are late as the scripts are still awaiting marking whilst other marks may be unavailable due to the candidate having been absent. The percentage of marks that is available at award is known as the `Percentage Fully Processed' (PFP) . The distributions provided at an award are therefore an incomplete representation of the full cohort's performance. The aim of an award meeting is to set grade boundaries for each judgemental grade1 in light of the judgemental and statistical evidence such that standards remain comparable across series and awarding bodies. Before an award, unit-level `Statistically Recommended Boundaries' (SRBs) are derived from a statistical prediction. At the award meeting, recommended boundaries are chosen with an appreciation of how closely the outcome adheres to this prediction. Problems can arise when the distributions from which the boundaries were chosen are signiﬁcantly different to those where all marks have been accounted for—the Fully Processed (FP) distribution—as this may result in a change in outcomes that may have affected the choice of grade boundaries. At the time of publication of results, there may therefore be a drift in the outcome at a judgemental grade boundary compared to at award. This is termed `Post-Awarding Drift' (PAD) 1A judgemental grade boundary is one for which examiners scrutinise candidates' work at award meetings, for example A, C and F at GCSE. Other boundaries are calculated once these judgemental ones have been determined. [www.cerp.org.uk](www.cerp.org.uk) Copyright 􀀍c 2012 AQA Education and its licensors. All rights reserved. AQA Education (AQA) is a registered charity (number 1073334) and a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales (number 3644723) . Our registered address is AQA, Devas Street, Manchester M15 6EX —the difference between outcome at award and outcome at provisional results publication2. Due to the importance of the statistical evidence in supporting examiners' judgements, the guidance i

FAQs

What is Post-Awarding Drift (PAD)?

PAD is the drift in outcomes at a judgemental grade boundary observed between award and provisional results publication, caused by additional mark data becoming available after award.

How does PFP relate to PAD and grade boundary decisions?

PFP measures the proportion of candidate marks available at award. When boundary distributions based on partially available data differ from the Fully Processed (FP) distribution, outcomes can change, leading to PAD.

Why does the recommended MRPFP change across units?

The study finds MRPFP varies from unit to unit, primarily driven by the size of the total entry, so extremely large-entry units may have MRPFP values below 1%.

Oct 20, 2026

Uploaded by Jordan Avery