IUSCA Code of Conduct 1. Purpose 1.1 This Code of Conduct (“Code”) sets out the minimum standards of professional, ethical, and scientific practice expected of IUSCA-certified practitioners. 1.2 The Code exists to protect clients, athletes, and the public; uphold the integrity of Strength & Conditioning as a profession; and ensure that IUSCA certification represents safe practice, intellectual honesty, and scientific standards. 2. Scope and applicability 2.1 This Code applies to all individuals who hold an IUSCA certification, represent themselves as IUSCA-certified, and/or appear on an IUSCA register/directory (where applicable). 2.2 This Code applies across all contexts of practice (professional, educational, online/remote, and public communication), including social media and marketing. 2.3 This Code does not replace applicable laws, employer policies, safeguarding regulations, or other professional obligations. Where multiple standards apply, practitioners must follow the most stringent relevant standard. 3. Interpretation 3.1 In this Code, “must” indicates a mandatory requirement. 3.2 “Should” indicates a strong expectation of good practice. Practitioners may depart from a “should” where justified by context, risk, or constraints, and should be able to explain their rationale. 4. Definitions (short form) 4.1 Client/Athlete: any individual receiving coaching, support, education, or assessment from the practitioner. 4.2 Vulnerable person: includes children (under 18) and adults at risk due to health, disability, age, or circumstance. 4.3 Informed consent: voluntary, informed agreement to participate or share data, without coercion, and with capacity to decide. 4.4 Scientific practitioner: a practitioner who uses critical reasoning, transparent decision-making, measurement where appropriate, and is willing to revise beliefs in light of better explanations or outcomes.   Part A — Foundational commitments 5. Principles and values of science in practice IUSCA-certified practitioners should uphold the following commitments: 5.1 Fallibilism and intellectual humility You should assume that your knowledge is incomplete and that you may be wrong. You should be willing to revise your views when better explanations, evidence, or outcomes demand it. 5.2 Hypothesis-test-reflect You should treat methods and programmes as provisional solutions to practical problems, monitor outcomes where appropriate, and seek disconfirming feedback rather than only confirming anecdotes. 5.3 Explanations over authority You should prefer explanations and transparent reasoning over appeals to status, tradition, popularity, or “what elite teams do”. Where authority is cited, you should be able to explain the underlying rationale. 5.4 Avoidance of dogma and unfalsifiable claims You should avoid presenting beliefs in ways that prevent meaningful evaluation (e.g., moving goalposts, redefining failure as success, or dismissing all criticism without engaging with the substance of the critique). 5.5 Clarity about uncertainty You should distinguish clearly between established knowledge, plausible but uncertain claims, personal preference/style, and speculation. 5.6 Truthfulness and transparency You must not intentionally mislead, misrepresent research, cherry-pick evidence in a deceptive manner, or present correlation as causation. 5.7 Reality of individual contexts You should recognise that clients and teams are unique systems in unique constraints and use scientific reasoning to adapt interventions, rather than applying research findings mechanically.   Part B — Professional duties 6. Client welfare, safety, and public interest 6.1 Duty of care is paramount You must prioritise the health, safety, and welfare of clients/athletes over performance outcomes, commercial interests, or personal reputation. 6.2 Risk management You must take reasonable steps to identify and reduce foreseeable risks, including appropriate screening, progression, supervision, and safe use of environments and equipment. 6.3 Fitness to practise You must not practise when impaired (e.g., by illness, substances, extreme fatigue, or psychological distress) in a way that could compromise safety or judgement. 7. Competence, scope of practice, and referrals 7.1 You must practise within your competence, based on education, training, supervised experience, and current capability. 7.2 You must not misrepresent qualifications, experience, titles, or endorsements. 7.3 You must refer to appropriately qualified professionals when matters fall outside your scope (e.g., medical diagnosis, physiotherapy, psychotherapy, or regulated nutrition practice). 8. Informed consent, confidentiality, and data protection 8.1 You must obtain informed consent before assessment, testing, recording, programme delivery, or collection of personal data beyond what is necessary for safe coaching. Consent must be revisitable and withdrawable. 8.2 You must maintain confidentiality and only disclose personal information with consent or where legally required, including safeguarding obligations or serious risk to the individual or others. 8.3 You must handle data in accordance with applicable law and use secure storage and access practices. 9. Scientific integrity in assessment, monitoring, and claims 9.1 Measurement integrity Where you measure or test, you must use methods competently, report results honestly, and avoid overstating precision or meaning. 9.2 Interpretation discipline You should avoid claims that are not warranted by the method used, and you should communicate limitations and uncertainty appropriately. 9.3 No guaranteed outcomes You must not promise guaranteed results or present speculative mechanisms as established fact. 9.4 Records and accountability Where reasonable and proportionate, you should keep records sufficient to support safe practice, continuity, accountability, and learning. 10. Professional behaviour and boundaries 10.1 You must treat clients, athletes, and colleagues with respect and maintain appropriate professional boundaries. 10.2 You must not exploit professional relationships for personal gain or gratification. 10.3 You must communicate professionally in person and online and must not behave in a way that is likely to bring IUSCA or the profession into disrepute. 11. Equality, diversity, inclusion, and dignity 11.1 You must provide equitable and respectful services, free from unlawful discrimination, harassment, or degrading treatment. 11.2 You should take reasonable steps to create psychologically and physically safe environments, including respectful language and appropriate consent culture. 12. Conflicts of interest, gifts, and corruption 12.1 You must declare conflicts of interest that could reasonably be perceived to influence judgement (financial, personal, organisational). 12.2 You must not engage in corrupt practice, kickbacks, undisclosed paid endorsements, or deceptive affiliate marketing. 12.3 Where you receive incentives (e.g., commissions), you must disclose them clearly and ensure recommendations remain client-centred and defensible. 13. Continuing professional development (CPD) 13.1 You must undertake and be able to evidence appropriate CPD to maintain competence and keep practice current. 13.2 CPD should include both technical development (coaching, monitoring, safety) and epistemic development (reasoning, critical appraisal, explanation-building, and learning from outcomes). 14. Safeguarding and protection of vulnerable persons 14.1 You must follow safeguarding best practice and comply with relevant legal duties. 14.2 You must act promptly where you suspect abuse, exploitation, or serious risk of harm, using appropriate reporting pathways. 15. Raising concerns and whistleblowing 15.1 You should raise concerns about serious malpractice, unsafe practice, fraud, or abuse using appropriate organisational or legal channels. 15.2 You must not retaliate against, intimidate, or attempt to silence individuals who raise good-faith concerns.   Part C — Compliance, complaints, and sanctions 16. Compliance and cooperation 16.1 You must comply with this Code and cooperate with any reasonable IUSCA investigation, including providing relevant records where lawful and appropriate. 17. Breaches and outcomes 17.1 Alleged breaches may be investigated under IUSCA’s Professional Conduct and Disciplinary Procedure. 17.2 Possible outcomes, proportionate to seriousness, may include advice or required remediation, formal warning, conditions on certification (e.g., supervision or additional training), suspension from any register/directory, and/or revocation of certification. 18. Review 18.1 This Code will be reviewed periodically to reflect best practice, evolving knowledge, and legal/regulatory updates. Download Full Policy

IUSCA Complaints Procedure Aligned with the International Qualification Framework (IQF) and IQF Independent Regulatory Council (IQF-IRC) 1. Purpose IUSCA is committed to maintaining high standards across its education, certification, accreditation, and professional development activities. This Complaints Procedure provides a fair, transparent, and timely process for raising concerns, ensuring appropriate investigation, and supporting continuous improvement. 2. Scope This procedure applies to complaints relating to IUSCA services and activities, including (but not limited to): • course delivery, learning resources, and learner support • certification administration and candidate experience • assessor conduct and professional behaviour • operational service standards (communication, delays, errors) • events, webinars, and conference-related service delivery • degree accreditation and endorsement processes (process/behaviour issues) 3. What is not a complaint under this procedure Some matters must be handled under separate processes to ensure fairness and due process: 3.1 Assessment decisions (appeals) If you disagree with an assessment outcome (e.g., exam result, case study marking, practical assessment outcome), this is handled through the Assessment Appeals Procedure (not this Complaints Procedure), unless your concern is specifically about process irregularity or conduct. 3.2 Malpractice / maladministration Allegations of cheating, plagiarism, falsification, identity fraud, certificate misuse, assessor misconduct affecting integrity, or systemic administrative failure are handled under the Malpractice and Maladministration Policy. 3.3 Safeguarding and urgent risk Any safeguarding concern or immediate risk to a person must be escalated immediately to IUSCA via the contact details below and may be handled outside standard timeframes. 4. Definitions A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction about IUSCA services, staff/assessor conduct, procedures, or operational decisions, where a response or resolution is expected. 5. Principles IUSCA will ensure complaints are handled in line with: • fairness, impartiality, and respect • timely acknowledgement, investigation, and response • confidentiality and data protection • proportionality (the response matches the issue) • learning and continuous improvement • appropriate independence (where needed), consistent with IQF and IQF-IRC expectations of integrity and due process 6. Roles and responsibilities • Quality & Standards Lead (QSL): owns the complaints process, triage, investigation allocation, record keeping, and reporting. • Investigating Officer (IO): conducts fact-finding and proposes outcomes (must not be directly involved in the matter being investigated). • Appeals/Review Officer (ARO): handles appeals of complaint outcomes (must be independent of the original investigation and decision). • IQF-IRC Liaison (as applicable): where a complaint indicates a systemic quality risk, a regulatory integrity issue, or repeated breaches, IUSCA may refer themes or serious issues for oversight review consistent with IQF-IRC governance. 7. How to make a complaint Complaints should be submitted in writing by email (preferred) and include: • your name and contact details • the nature of the complaint and relevant dates • what outcome you are seeking • any supporting evidence (emails, screenshots, documents) • whether you have already attempted informal resolution Submission email: complaints@iusca.org(mailto:complaints@iusca.org) 8. Informal resolution (Stage 1) Where appropriate, IUSCA will first seek to resolve issues informally and quickly. • Acknowledgement: within 3 working days • Target resolution: within 10 working days of acknowledgement • If informal resolution is not possible or appropriate, the complaint moves to Stage 2. 9. Formal complaint investigation (Stage 2) A formal investigation will be initiated where: • the complaint is serious, complex, or repeated • informal resolution fails • the complaint relates to conduct, fairness of process, or quality risk Process 1. Triage and allocation (QSL assigns an IO) 2. Investigation (fact-finding, evidence review, relevant interviews) 3. Outcome decision (by QSL or delegated senior officer not implicated) 4. Written response to the complainant Timescales • Acknowledgement of Stage 2: within 3 working days • Target response: within 20 working days of Stage 2 acknowledgement • If more time is required (e.g., multiple parties, complex evidence), IUSCA will write to explain why and provide a revised timeline. 10. Possible outcomes and remedies Outcomes will be proportionate and may include: • explanation/clarification of policy or decision • correction of administrative errors • apology where appropriate • procedural improvements (SOP changes, training, monitoring) • service remedy (e.g., expedited processing where delays occurred) • referral to another process (appeals, malpractice, safeguarding) where relevant Limits IUSCA cannot guarantee outcomes such as disciplinary action against individuals, nor can it overturn assessment decisions through this complaints route (assessment outcomes must follow appeals). 11. Appeal / review (Stage 3) If you are dissatisfied with the Stage 2 outcome, you may request a review. Grounds for review typically include: • procedural error in how the complaint was handled • new evidence that could materially affect the outcome • the outcome was unreasonable based on the available evidence Timescales • Appeal request submitted within 10 working days of the Stage 2 outcome • Acknowledgement: within 3 working days • Final review outcome: within 20 working days (or revised timeline if complex) The review will be handled by the Appeals/Review Officer, independent of the original decision. 12. Confidentiality and data protection IUSCA will handle complaints confidentially, sharing information only with those who need it to investigate and resolve the issue. Personal data will be processed in line with applicable data protection requirements. 13. Record keeping, monitoring, and continuous improvement IUSCA will: • maintain a secure complaints register (issue type, timeline, outcomes, actions) • retain complaint records for a defined period (6 years) • review trends to identify systemic improvements • report themes and improvement actions through internal quality assurance processes, and to IQF-IRC oversight where appropriate 14. Unreasonable or vexatious complaints IUSCA will treat complainants respectfully, but reserves the right to manage repeated, abusive, or unreasonable communications, including setting communication boundaries or refusing to progress complaints that do not meet the criteria for review. 15. Publication and review This policy is published on the IUSCA website and is reviewed periodically to ensure continued alignment with IQF and IQF-IRC expectations and good practice in professional standards and quality assurance.

IUSCA Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) Processes Aligned with the International Qualification Framework (IQF) and IQF Independent Regulatory Council (IQF-IRC) 1. Purpose The International Universities Strength and Conditioning Association (IUSCA) maintains Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) processes to ensure that all education, assessment, certification, endorsement, and accreditation activities are delivered consistently, fairly, and to a high standard. IQA is central to safeguarding the integrity of IUSCA awards and designations and ensuring continuous improvement across the organisation. 2. Scope These IQA processes apply to: • IUSCA certifications (all IQF levels) and associated assessments (MCQ exams, case studies, practical assessments, portfolio requirements) • assessor and internal verifier activity (marking, feedback, standardisation, moderation) • certification administration and candidate experience (registration, identity checks, results processing, certification issuance) • endorsed courses and partners where IUSCA assessment or certification is embedded • degree accreditation and related quality oversight (process integrity and consistency of mapping decisions) • complaints, appeals, malpractice/maladministration themes and corrective actions • quality reporting and continuous improvement activities 3. Quality principles IUSCA IQA is built on the following principles, consistent with IQF and IQF-IRC expectations of integrity and due process: • Validity: assessments measure the intended knowledge, skills, and decision-making competencies at the relevant IQF level • Reliability: outcomes are consistent across assessors, cohorts, and contexts • Fairness and accessibility: candidates are treated equitably, with reasonable adjustments where appropriate • Transparency: criteria, processes, and expectations are clear and communicated • Independence: appropriate separation between delivery, assessment, and quality review functions • Evidence-based improvement: quality decisions are documented, reviewed, and refined through error-correction 4. Governance and roles IUSCA maintains defined quality roles to ensure accountability and appropriate independence. 4.1 Quality & Standards Lead (QSL) • Owns the IQA system and annual quality plan • Sets sampling strategy, standardisation requirements, and quality KPIs • Oversees complaints/appeals integration into IQA actions • Produces the annual IQA report and improvement plan • Escalates serious quality risks and integrity issues through governance channels, including IQF-IRC oversight where appropriate 4.2 Lead Internal Quality Assurer (Lead IQA) • Implements IQA activity across programmes (sampling, monitoring, standardisation) • Supports assessor development and calibration • Reviews assessment materials and versions • Reports IQA findings to the QSL 4.3 Assessors / Examiners • Conduct assessments in line with published criteria and guidance • Maintain records, provide feedback, and engage in standardisation • Declare conflicts of interest 4.4 Independent Reviewer (Appeals / Integrity) • Handles appeals reviews independent of original assessment decisions • May be used for serious quality investigations to ensure independence 4.5 IQF-IRC Liaison • Coordinates regulatory integrity issues, systemic quality concerns, and oversight reporting where relevant 5. IQA planning cycle IUSCA operates an annual IQA cycle: 1. Annual IQA plan (risk-based sampling strategy, priorities, training plan, audit schedule) 2. Assessment design and pre-delivery checks (validity, clarity, comparability across cohorts) 3. Live delivery monitoring (candidate support, operational accuracy, assessor conduct) 4. Post-assessment verification (sampling, standardisation evaluation, outcomes analysis) 5. Reporting and improvement (annual report, corrective actions, policy updates) 6. Assessment design and quality control IUSCA ensures that assessment materials and criteria remain fit for purpose and aligned to IQF level descriptors. 6.1 Assessment specification and mapping For each award/level, IUSCA maintains: • learning outcomes and competency expectations • assessment methods and weightings (e.g., MCQ + case study + practical) • marking rubrics and pass criteria • policies for reassessment, resubmission, and reasonable adjustments • mapping to IQF level expectations (e.g., scope, autonomy, decision making, scientific reasoning) 6.2 Version control All assessment materials must have: • version number and effective date • approval record (QSL/Lead IQA) • change log (what changed and why) Retired versions are archived to support auditability. 6.3 Pre-delivery checks Before assessments go live, IUSCA confirms: • clarity of instructions and criteria • comparability of difficulty across versions/cohorts • integrity controls (identity checks where required; plagiarism detection; proctoring rules if used) • assessor guidance and example scripts (where relevant) 7. IQA sampling strategy IUSCA uses a risk-based sampling approach. Sampling intensity increases when risk is higher (new assessor, new assessment, borderline results, high stakes awards, prior issues). Minimum sampling expectations (baseline) • New assessors: sample 50% of assessments in their first cohort, then reduce based on performance • Established assessors: sample a minimum of 10% of assessments per cohort, with targeted sampling for risk areas • Borderline outcomes: sample 100% of borderline passes/fails (as defined by the rubric thresholds) • New/changed assessments: increased sampling in the first delivery cycle (recommended 25–50%, depending on volume) • Practical assessments: sample at least 20% of submissions, with higher sampling where a new assessor is involved • Case studies / written work: sample at least 10%, plus targeted sampling for plagiarism/integrity risk • MCQ exams: quarterly item performance review (difficulty, discrimination, reliability) with targeted audit of anomalies Sampling decisions and rationale are documented for each cohort. 8. Standardisation and assessor development 8.1 Standardisation meetings IUSCA holds standardisation at least quarterly (and additionally when required), to ensure consistent application of standards. Standardisation includes: • reviewing exemplar work and applying rubrics • discussing borderline decisions and rationale • identifying common candidate errors and feedback improvements • reviewing assessment outcomes and trends • updating assessor guidance as needed 8.2 Assessor training and expectations Assessors must: • complete induction on rubrics, IQF level expectations, and decision-making standards • maintain professional conduct and declare conflicts of interest • engage in standardisation and respond to IQA feedback • follow marking turnaround targets and feedback standards 9. Quality monitoring and KPIs IUSCA monitors quality using indicators such as: • turnaround times (acknowledgement, marking, results release, certificate issuance) • candidate satisfaction/complaint themes • pass rates and variance by cohort/assessor (to identify anomalies) • reassessment rates and reasons • appeals frequency and outcomes • integrity incidents (malpractice/maladministration) and resolution times • sampling findings (frequency and type of non-conformities) Trends are reviewed as part of the IQA cycle and fed into improvement actions. 10. Non-conformities and corrective actions Where IQA identifies issues, IUSCA uses a structured corrective action process. 10.1 Classification • Minor non-conformity: isolated issue with limited impact (e.g., feedback format inconsistency) • Major non-conformity: issue that may affect fairness/reliability (e.g., rubric misapplication, inconsistent standards) • Critical integrity issue: suspected fraud, misconduct, systemic failure, or serious breach of due process 10.2 Corrective actions Actions may include: • assessor retraining or increased sampling • reassessment or remarking where fairness may be compromised • process change (SOP updates, additional checks) • temporary suspension of an assessor or assessment route pending investigation • escalation to malpractice/maladministration procedures when relevant • escalation for oversight consideration where systemic integrity risks are identified (including IQF-IRC channels where appropriate) All actions have an owner, deadline, and verification step. 11. Integration with complaints, appeals, and malpractice IQA is linked to governance processes to ensure continuous improvement: • Complaints: themes and systemic issues feed into process changes and training • Appeals: outcomes are reviewed to improve clarity, rubrics, and assessor consistency • Malpractice/maladministration: integrity issues trigger immediate controls and may increase sampling intensity Where a complaint/appeal indicates an integrity risk, the matter may be routed to the appropriate policy to ensure due process. 12. Records, confidentiality, and retention IUSCA maintains secure records for: • sampling plans and sampling outcomes • standardisation meetings (attendance, decisions, actions) • assessment versions and change logs • assessor training and performance monitoring • KPI dashboards and annual reports • complaints/appeals/integrity case summaries (as appropriate) Recommended retention period: 6 years (or longer where required by contract, legal obligation, or governance needs). Access is restricted to relevant quality and leadership personnel. 13. Reporting 13.1 Cohort reporting After each cohort/assessment cycle, IQA produces a short report summarising: • sampling activity and findings • actions taken • recommendations for improvement 13.2 Annual IQA report At least annually, IUSCA produces an IQA report covering: • quality KPIs and trends • sampling outcomes and non-conformities • assessor standardisation activity and development • integrity incidents and responses • policy/process improvements implemented • priorities for the next cycle Where appropriate, high-level reporting may be shared with relevant governance stakeholders and oversight structures consistent with IQF-IRC principles of integrity and independent regulation. 14. Publication and review This policy is published as part of IUSCA’s governance framework and reviewed periodically to ensure it remains effective, current, and aligned with IQF and IQF-IRC expectations and good practice.

IUSCA Malpractice and Maladministration Policy Aligned with the International Qualification Framework (IQF) and IQF Independent Regulatory Council (IQF-IRC) 1. Purpose The International Universities Strength and Conditioning Association (IUSCA) is committed to safeguarding the integrity, credibility, and fairness of its qualifications, certifications, accreditations, and professional designations. This policy sets out how IUSCA prevents, identifies, investigates, and responds to malpractice and maladministration, ensuring robust due process and continuous improvement. 2. Scope This policy applies to all IUSCA activities, including: • IUSCA certifications and assessments (all IQF levels) • the Practitioner Portfolio and any submitted evidence • assessor, internal verifier, moderator, and staff activity • endorsed courses and partners where IUSCA certification/assessment is embedded • degree accreditation processes where integrity or procedural failures may affect decisions • certification issuance, credential verification, and directory/register entries (where applicable) • events and professional recognition activities where integrity standards apply This policy applies to: • learners/candidates • assessors/examiners • staff, contractors, and volunteers • partner organisations and third-party providers (where relevant to IUSCA processes) 3. Definitions Malpractice: any deliberate act, negligence, or attempt to gain unfair advantage, or to compromise the integrity of an assessment, credential, or quality process. Maladministration: unintentional or systemic administrative failure that compromises fairness, reliability, security, or due process. 4. Principles IUSCA will apply this policy in line with: • fairness, impartiality, and proportionality • confidentiality and data protection • evidence-based decision making • appropriate independence (those investigating/deciding are not implicated) • timely action to protect candidates and integrity • alignment with IQF and IQF-IRC expectations of integrity and independent regulation 5. Examples of malpractice and maladministration The examples below are not exhaustive. 5.1 Candidate / learner malpractice • plagiarism or use of ghost-writing services • collusion (unauthorised collaboration) • falsification of data, logs, hours, or portfolio evidence • impersonation or identity fraud • unauthorised use of AI tools where prohibited or used to misrepresent authorship • exam misconduct (cheating, unauthorised materials, sharing questions) • attempts to influence an assessor, intimidate staff, or circumvent procedures • certificate misuse, fraud, or misrepresentation of credentials 5.2 Assessor / staff malpractice • bias, discrimination, or unfair treatment affecting outcomes • improper assistance to candidates • breach of confidentiality or sharing secure materials • failure to declare conflicts of interest • altering evidence, manipulating marks, or fabricating records • intimidation, harassment, or coercion • issuing credentials outside authorised processes 5.3 Maladministration (process failures) • incorrect results processing, certification issuance errors, or record inaccuracies • failure to apply published criteria consistently • inadequate identity checks where required • poor version control (wrong rubrics/assessment versions) • missed reasonable adjustments or procedural safeguards • delayed or incomplete communication that compromises fairness • inadequate sampling, standardisation, or monitoring 6. Reporting malpractice or maladministration Concerns should be reported as soon as possible via: • complaints@iusca.org (mailto:complaints@iusca.org) Reports should include: • names (if known), dates, and context • a description of the concern • any evidence available (documents, screenshots, links) Anonymous reports will be considered, though this may limit investigation. IUSCA supports good-faith reporting. Malicious or knowingly false allegations may themselves be treated as misconduct. 7. Triage and initial risk controls On receipt, the Quality & Standards Lead (QSL) will conduct an initial triage within 5 working days to determine: • whether the matter is malpractice or maladministration • the seriousness and potential impact on fairness/integrity • whether immediate controls are needed Immediate controls may include: • pausing an assessment outcome pending investigation (where integrity risk is credible) • withholding certificate issuance temporarily • increasing sampling and verification for a cohort/assessor • restricting access to assessment materials • temporary suspension of an assessor from marking activity • securing records and relevant data to prevent loss or tampering These controls are precautionary and do not imply guilt. 8. Investigation process IUSCA will appoint an Investigating Officer (IO) who is independent of the alleged incident where possible. Investigation steps typically include: 1. defining allegations and scope 2. collecting evidence (assessment scripts, logs, platform records, submissions, correspondence) 3. interviewing relevant parties (where appropriate) 4. assessing evidence against published criteria and standards 5. producing an investigation report with findings and recommendations Timescales • acknowledgement of report: within 3 working days • target completion: within 20 working days where feasible If more time is required, IUSCA will provide an updated timeline. 9. Decision making and outcomes The QSL (or delegated senior officer not implicated) will decide outcomes based on the investigation report. Where a case is serious, complex, or has potential reputational/systemic impact, IUSCA may appoint an Independent Reviewer for added separation. Outcomes will be proportionate and may include one or more of: 9.1 Candidate outcomes (examples) • written warning and educational remediation (minor issues) • resubmission with conditions • reassessment/retake under controlled conditions • mark adjustment or nullification of affected work • fail outcome for the affected assessment component • suspension from attempting assessment for a defined period • withdrawal of certification or designation where already issued • removal from public registers/directories (where applicable) • reporting to relevant parties where required (e.g., partner provider) in line with data protection and due process 9.2 Assessor/staff outcomes (examples) • retraining and increased monitoring/sampling • formal warning and performance management actions • removal from assessor role or suspension from duties • termination of contract/engagement (where applicable) • referral to partner organisation/employer where relevant • referral under safeguarding procedures if risk is indicated 9.3 System/process outcomes (maladministration) • correction of records and issuance of amended results/certificates • cohort review/remarking where fairness is compromised • SOP updates and additional controls • increased sampling and standardisation requirements • platform/process changes to prevent recurrence • staff/assessor training and competence verification 10. Notification and communication IUSCA will communicate outcomes in writing, including: • the decision and rationale (within confidentiality limits) • the actions taken • any right to appeal and timescales IUSCA will protect confidentiality as far as possible while ensuring due process. 11. Appeals A subject of a malpractice decision (candidate or assessor) may appeal where: • there was a procedural error; and/or • new evidence is available that could materially affect the outcome; and/or • the decision was unreasonable based on the evidence available Appeals must be submitted within 10 working days of the decision notice. Appeals will be handled by an Appeals/Review Officer independent of the original investigation and decision. Timescales • acknowledgement: within 3 working days • target outcome: within 20 working days (or updated timeline if complex) The appeal outcome is final within IUSCA processes. 12. External reporting and escalation IUSCA may report matters to external bodies only where appropriate and lawful, for example: • credible evidence of fraud, identity theft, or document forgery • safeguarding concerns • serious professional misconduct affecting public trust or safety • contractual obligations with partners (within agreed terms and data protection) Where integrity concerns indicate systemic risk, IUSCA may escalate themes or serious issues through governance channels consistent with IQF-IRC expectations for independent oversight and quality assurance. 13. Record keeping, confidentiality, and retention IUSCA will maintain secure records of: • reports, evidence, investigation notes, and decisions • sanctions and corrective actions • appeals and outcomes • process improvements implemented Recommended retention: 6 years (or longer where required by law/contract). Access is restricted to those who require it for governance and quality functions. 14. Prevention and continuous improvement IUSCA prevents malpractice and maladministration through: • clear candidate guidance and rules for assessment conduct • strong rubrics, version control, and secure assessment processes • identity verification where appropriate • plagiarism detection and authenticity checks for written work • assessor induction, standardisation, and ongoing monitoring • risk-based sampling and audit within IQA processes • review of trends to improve systems and reduce recurrence 15. Publication and review This policy is published as part of IUSCA’s governance framework and reviewed periodically to ensure it remains effective and aligned with IQF and IQF-IRC expectations and good practice.

IUSCA Assessment Appeals Procedure Aligned with the International Qualification Framework (IQF) and IQF Independent Regulatory Council (IQF-IRC) 1. Purpose IUSCA is committed to fair, consistent, and evidence-based assessment decisions across all IQF levels. This Assessment Appeals Procedure provides a clear, transparent route for candidates to request a review of an assessment decision where they believe that an error has occurred. This procedure supports due process and protects the integrity of IUSCA awards by ensuring that appeals are handled independently, proportionately, and within defined timeframes. 2. Scope This procedure applies to appeals relating to outcomes of IUSCA assessments, including (but not limited to): • multiple-choice examinations (MCQ) • written case studies / assignments • practical coaching assessments (e.g., video-based assessment) • Practitioner Portfolio assessment decisions (where assessed) • any assessment component contributing to an IUSCA certification or designation This procedure applies to candidates on IUSCA programmes and to candidates completing IUSCA assessment components embedded within endorsed courses or partner-delivered pathways, where IUSCA is the awarding/assessing body. 3. What can be appealed An appeal may be submitted where the candidate believes one or more of the following occurred: • Procedural error: IUSCA’s published assessment process was not followed (e.g., incorrect rubric used, incorrect version applied, administrative error affecting outcome). • Evidence not properly considered: relevant evidence submitted was not reviewed or was overlooked. • Unreasonable decision: the decision was not supported by the evidence when judged against the published criteria/rubric. • Bias or conflict of interest: there is a credible concern that impartiality was compromised. 4. What cannot be appealed The following are not valid grounds for appeal on their own: • Disagreement with academic judgement where published criteria were applied appropriately • Desire for a higher grade without identifying a procedural or evidential basis • Mitigating circumstances (these should be raised as mitigation at the relevant time; however, IUSCA may consider them where they relate to documented procedural fairness) • Integrity concerns (cheating, falsification, impersonation, fraud) — these are handled under the IUSCA Malpractice and Maladministration Policy If a matter is submitted under the wrong procedure, IUSCA will reclassify it and confirm the correct process in writing. 5. Relationship to complaints and malpractice • Assessment Appeals address assessment outcomes and fairness of process. • Complaints address dissatisfaction with service, communication, operational matters, or conduct not directly related to an assessment decision. • Malpractice/Maladministration addresses integrity breaches or serious/systemic failures that may compromise fairness or security. 6. Timescales • Appeals must be submitted within 10 working days of the candidate receiving the assessment outcome (or results notification). • IUSCA will acknowledge receipt within 3 working days. • IUSCA will normally issue an appeal outcome within 20 working days of acknowledgement. Where a case is complex and requires more time, IUSCA will confirm the reason and provide a revised timeline. 7. How to submit an appeal Appeals must be submitted in writing by email and should include: • candidate name, membership/ID (if applicable), and contact details • the assessment component being appealed (MCQ / case study / practical / portfolio) • the date of the original decision and the result/outcome received • the grounds for appeal (Section 3) • a clear explanation of why the candidate believes an error occurred • any supporting evidence (e.g., correspondence, screenshots, relevant extracts) Submission email: complaints@iusca.org (mailto:complaints@iusca.org) 8. Stage 1: Appeal review (administrative check and triage) The Quality & Standards Lead (QSL) will conduct an initial triage to confirm that: • the submission meets the definition and grounds of an appeal • the appeal is within the time limit (or whether an exception is justified) • the matter should instead be routed to Complaints or Malpractice Where the appeal proceeds, the QSL will appoint an Appeals/Review Officer (ARO) who is independent of the original assessment decision and, wherever possible, not directly involved in delivery. 9. Stage 2: Investigation and independent review The ARO will conduct an evidence-based review, which may include: • confirming the correct rubric/version and published criteria were applied • reviewing the original assessment decision and rationale • checking administrative processing (data entry, result reporting, eligibility rules) • reviewing the candidate’s submission and the assessor’s feedback • seeking clarification from the assessor (without allowing post-hoc changes to standards) • requesting a second marking or moderation where appropriate Practical assessments: the ARO may request review by a second appropriately qualified assessor, using the same rubric and standards. MCQ exams: the ARO may investigate technical issues, item errors, or scoring anomalies and may refer item performance issues into IQA. 10. Stage 3: Appeal outcome and remedies Possible outcomes include: • Appeal not upheld: original decision stands, with explanation • Appeal upheld (administrative/procedural): correction of error and updated outcome • Appeal upheld (marking/standard application): remarking/moderation leading to a revised outcome (increase or decrease where justified) • Reassessment offered: where fairness may have been compromised and remarking cannot resolve the issue • Process improvement action: where the appeal identifies systemic issues (fed into IQA) IUSCA will notify the candidate in writing of: • the decision and rationale • any revised outcome and next steps • any corrective actions (where appropriate) • the finality of the appeal outcome within IUSCA processes 11. Independence, conflicts of interest, and fairness • The appeal will be handled by an individual independent of the original decision. • Any conflict of interest must be declared, and an alternative reviewer appointed. • The review will be conducted using the standards and criteria that applied at the time of the original assessment. 12. Confidentiality and data protection IUSCA will handle appeals confidentially and in line with data protection requirements. Information will only be shared with those who need it to administer and review the appeal. 13. Records and continuous improvement IUSCA will: • maintain a secure appeals register (grounds, timelines, outcomes, actions) • retain records for a defined period (recommended: 6 years) • review appeal themes and outcomes as part of IQA • implement corrective actions to improve reliability, clarity, and fairness 14. Publication and review This procedure is published as part of IUSCA’s governance framework and reviewed periodically to ensure alignment with IQF and IQF-IRC expectations and good practice.

Accessibility and Reasonable Adjustments Policy Aligned with the International Qualification Framework (IQF) and IQF Independent Regulatory Council (IQF-IRC) 1. Purpose IUSCA is committed to fair access to learning, assessment, and professional recognition. This policy explains how candidates and participants can request reasonable adjustments so they can demonstrate competence without disadvantage, while protecting the integrity and standards of IUSCA assessments and certifications. 2. Scope This policy applies to IUSCA learning and assessment activities, including (but not limited to): • online courses and learning resources • MCQ examinations • written assignments and case studies • practical coaching assessments (including video-based assessments) • Practitioner Portfolio requirements (where assessed) • events delivered by IUSCA where participation adjustments may be required 3. Principles IUSCA will handle adjustment requests in line with the following principles: • Fair access: reasonable steps will be taken to remove barriers that are not relevant to the competence being assessed. • Standards are maintained: adjustments must not change the competence standard, reduce required learning outcomes, or compromise assessment integrity. • Individualised approach: adjustments are considered case-by-case based on need and context. • Timely and transparent decisions: requests are acknowledged and decided within published timescales where possible. • Confidentiality: personal information is handled sensitively and shared only where necessary to implement agreed adjustments. 4. What may qualify for an adjustment Adjustments may be considered where a participant has a disability, health condition, specific learning need, or other circumstance that creates a barrier to accessing learning or assessment. Examples include (but are not limited to): • physical or sensory impairments • neurodiversity and specific learning differences (e.g., dyslexia, ADHD) • long-term health conditions • temporary illness or injury (where relevant to assessment access rather than performance standard) 5. Examples of reasonable adjustments Adjustments will depend on the assessment type and the competence being measured. Examples may include: • additional time for timed assessments (e.g., MCQ exams) • rest breaks during longer assessments • alternative formats for written materials where available • scheduling flexibility for practical assessments (where feasible) • use of assistive technology (screen readers, captioning, ergonomic equipment) • submission format adjustments where appropriate (e.g., typed submission instead of handwritten) Where an adjustment is not feasible, IUSCA may propose an alternative arrangement that achieves the same goal without compromising standards. 6. What cannot be adjusted IUSCA cannot approve adjustments that: • lower the competence standard required for certification • remove essential assessment criteria (e.g., safety-critical coaching competencies) • undermine the validity, reliability, or security of the assessment • provide an unfair advantage unrelated to access needs 7. How to request an adjustment Requests should be made as early as possible and ideally before booking or attempting an assessment. Requests should include: • participant name and contact details • programme/course and assessment(s) affected • the barrier being experienced and the adjustment requested • any relevant supporting information (where available and appropriate) Supporting information may include a healthcare letter, educational support plan, or other documentation. IUSCA will not request unnecessary information and will consider requests even where formal documentation is not readily available, particularly for time-sensitive situations. Submission email: courses@iusca.org(mailto:courses@iusca.org) 8. Timescales and decision making • Acknowledgement: within 3 working days • Decision (where feasible): within 10 working days of receiving sufficient information. Where more time is required (e.g., complex arrangements), IUSCA will provide an updated timeline. Decisions are made by the Quality & Standards Lead (QSL) (or a delegated officer), with input from assessors only where needed to confirm feasibility and integrity. Assessors will be informed only of what they need to implement the adjustment. 9. Recording and implementation Approved adjustments will be: • documented and stored securely • communicated clearly to the participant (and relevant staff/assessors) • implemented consistently for the relevant assessment(s) Adjustments may be approved for a single assessment sitting or for a defined period, depending on the nature of the need. 10. If a request is declined If IUSCA cannot approve the requested adjustment, we will: • explain the reason (e.g., impact on assessment integrity) • consider alternative arrangements where possible • confirm the route for raising concerns via the Complaints Procedure or Assessment Appeals Procedure, as appropriate 11. Confidentiality and data protection IUSCA will handle personal information in accordance with applicable data protection requirements. Information will only be shared with those who need it to implement agreed adjustments. 12. Publication and review This policy is published as part of IUSCA’s governance framework and reviewed periodically to ensure it remains effective and aligned with IQF and IQF-IRC expectations and good practice.

IUSCA Neutrality and Open Inquiry Policy Purpose The International Universities Strength and Conditioning Association (IUSCA) exists to advance strength and conditioning (S&C) education, practice, and scholarship by leading with the principles and values of science. This requires open inquiry, reasoned disagreement, and a culture in which claims can be tested, criticised, and refined without ideological pressure. This policy sets out how IUSCA approaches public statements on contested social, cultural, or political issues, and how we maintain an environment that supports open inquiry while remaining welcoming and accessible to the whole profession. Core principles IUSCA is committed to: • Open inquiry and critical discussion: Progress in S&C depends on error-correction, debate, and the freedom to question prevailing assumptions. • Viewpoint diversity: The profession benefits when credible disagreements and competing explanations can be explored without stigma. • Merit and non-discrimination: We do not select (or exclude) individuals on the basis of immutable characteristics. Roles, recognition, and platform opportunities are based on expertise, contribution, and professional conduct. • Mission focus: As a standards, accreditation, and professional development body, IUSCA prioritises scientific integrity, competence, and practitioner outcomes above external political or social pressures. Statement neutrality As a general rule, IUSCA does not issue institutional statements on contested social, cultural, or political matters that do not directly affect our mission. This is not indifference. It is a deliberate commitment to maintaining trust, enabling open discussion among diverse stakeholders, and preventing institutional authority from being used to enforce orthodoxy. Institutional statements are rare because they can unintentionally: • chill open discussion and discourage dissent; • incentivise lobbying or pressure campaigns; • reduce complex issues to simplified slogans; and • shift attention away from competence, evidence, and professional standards. When IUSCA will speak publicly IUSCA may issue an institutional statement only when an issue directly, significantly, and specifically affects IUSCA’s mission and operations, such as: • scientific integrity and research ethics in S&C; • practitioner standards, competence, safeguarding, and professional conduct; • degree accreditation and educational quality assurance; • independent regulation and due process; • academic freedom and the conditions required for open inquiry in education and scholarship; or • safety-critical guidance where clarity is necessary for responsible practice. When IUSCA does speak, we will: • clearly connect the issue to our mission; • prioritise evidence, clarity, and practical implications; • avoid ideological or partisan framing; and • distinguish between facts, interpretations, and uncertainties. Events, speakers, and representation IUSCA events, panels, and publications are designed to advance learning and professional standards. • Selection criteria: Speakers, panellists, reviewers, and contributors are selected on merit: expertise, impact, relevance to the theme, and the specific contribution they can make. • Non-discrimination: We do not select (or exclude) participants based on immutable characteristics, and we do not operate on demographic quotas. • Broad participation: We seek broad participation by widening opportunity—through open calls where appropriate, targeted outreach, varied formats (workshops, panels, posters), and reducing barriers to engagement—while keeping selection standards consistent. Respectful conduct and inclusion Open inquiry requires professionalism. IUSCA expects: • respectful disagreement and good-faith engagement; • a focus on claims, evidence, and reasoning rather than personal attack; and • a welcoming environment for all participants consistent with our code of conduct. IUSCA will address behaviour that undermines professional discussion, including harassment, discrimination, or attempts to silence debate through intimidation. Handling concerns and complaints If concerns are raised about IUSCA communications, events, or representation, we will: • acknowledge the concern respectfully; • explain our process and decision criteria; • consider constructive suggestions that align with our mission; and • avoid ad hoc decisions driven by social media dynamics or external pressure. Governance and review This policy is owned by IUSCA leadership and will be reviewed periodically to ensure it remains fit for purpose as the profession evolves. Updates will be made transparently, with the aim of strengthening open inquiry, scientific standards, and public trust.

Privacy Policy 1. Introduction Welcome to the International Universities Strength and Conditioning Association (IUSCA). Protecting your privacy is of paramount importance to us. This Privacy Policy outlines how we collect, use, and safeguard your personal data. Company Details: Company Name: International Universities Strength and Conditioning Association (IUSCA) Registered Address: Carnegie School of Sport Office, G17 Fairfax Hall, Leeds Beckett University Headingley Campus, Church Wood Avenue, Leeds, England, LS6 3QT Company Number: 11260654 2. Scope & Consent By accessing our website or using our services, you agree to the terms outlined in this Privacy Policy and consent to the collection, use, and disclosure of your information as described herein. If you do not agree with these practices, please discontinue the use of our services. 3. Information We Collect We may collect and process the following types of information: Personal Identification Information: Name, email address, phone number, postal address, and similar identifiers. Sensitive Information: Health details, special needs, dietary preferences (collected only when necessary and with your explicit consent). Digital Data: IP addresses, browser types, device information, and other technical data automatically collected during website interactions. 4. How We Use Your Information The information we collect may be used for the following purposes: Processing applications, placements, and memberships. Communicating with you, including sending newsletters and important updates. Enhancing and personalizing our services and website. Conducting research and analytics to improve our offerings. 5. Information Sharing & Disclosure We share your information with trusted third parties only when necessary for: Service delivery (e.g., placement providers, logistics partners). Legal or regulatory compliance. Enhancing our services (e.g., analytics providers). We will never sell or lease your personal data to third parties. 6. Data Retention We retain your data only for as long as it is necessary to fulfill the purposes outlined in this policy, or as required by applicable laws. 7. Data Security We employ robust technical and organizational measures to protect your data. While we strive to ensure the security of your information, no system is entirely foolproof, and we cannot guarantee absolute security. 8. Your Rights You may have certain rights under data protection laws, including the right to: Access the personal information we hold about you. Correct or update inaccurate information. Request the deletion of your data, subject to legal and operational considerations. To exercise these rights, contact us at the details provided below. 9. Third-Party Services Our website may contain links to third-party websites, which operate independently of us. We are not responsible for the privacy practices or content of these external sites. 10. Children's Privacy Our services are not intended for children under the age of 13, and we do not knowingly collect data from children under this age. 11. International Data Transfers Your data may be processed or stored outside your home country. We ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place to comply with applicable data protection laws. 12. Updates to This Policy We may revise this Privacy Policy from time to time. Changes will be posted on this page with the updated "Last Updated" date. For significant changes, we will provide a more prominent notice. 13. Contact Us If you have any questions, concerns, or requests regarding this Privacy Policy, please contact us: International Universities Strength and Conditioning Association (IUSCA) Registered Address: Carnegie School of Sport Office, G17 Fairfax Hall, Leeds Beckett University Headingley Campus, Church Wood Avenue, Leeds, England, LS6 3QT Company Number: 11260654 Email: info@iusca.org(mailto:info@iusca.org) Website: www.iusca.org(http://www.iusca.org)