Managing in-centre exams on an international scale comes with a range of logistical challenges.  Beyond the practical aspects of setup, administration, and invigilation, less obvious tasks – such as verifying candidates’ identities – can introduce unexpected risks and complications.

Ensuring the accuracy of exam candidates’ IDs worldwide is complicated by differing regional document standards, differing exam procedures, and the risk of fraud.  Ultimately, if candidates sit the exam with an inaccurate ID, or without their ID being scrutinised at all, the integrity of the entire exam is undermined.

In some cases, the exam day procedures set by awarding bodies and test centres can unintentionally create challenges for accurate ID verification.  But first, what are some of the practical issues around proving a candidates identity?

The Practicalities

The fact that different countries and regions have varying types of ID documents makes it difficult to establish a universal verification process, and can pose a practical nightmare when it comes to proving a candidate is who they say they are.  Awarding bodies may specify that only a particular type of ID is valid for verification, unaware that this form of ID is not commonly used in all countries or regions.  This can lead to confusion and stress for candidates on exam day, as the form of ID they present is turned away.

Our invigilators frequently see candidates presenting digital IDs – these are commonly used in many countries, such as India and Nigeria, and were introduced to solve the problem of a large number of citizens having no ID at all.  However, digital IDs are not accepted by every awarding organisation.  This leads to last minute stresses for candidates who use them successfully in all other areas of their daily lives.

Another practical issue regarding international IDs is that some forms of identification document do not contain the same information as the Western forms of ID we are used to.  A good example of this is in Pakistan, where candidates will often have their father’s name on their ID, meaning it does not match the name they registered for their exam with.  This can create confusion on exam day when verifying a candidate’s identity, as they may present a form of ID that is completely normal and accepted in their country, but does not meet the expectations of the awarding body.

Fraud and Malpractice

Beyond the practical challenges of verifying candidates’ identities on an international scale, there’s also the issue of fraud and malpractice.  Identity fraud is something we have encountered many times worldwide, but it is particularly prevalent in countries like India.

It may sound unbelievable, but some students really do seem to think sending an impersonator to sit their exam will give them a better chance of good grades than if they were to do it themselves.  This is something we have witnessed many times in India, a country where there are simply not enough jobs for the millions of people searching for employment – this leads to extremely competitive examinations and, as a result, extremely high levels of cheating.

One particular case highlights the lengths some people will go to for a good grade in this region.  Last January in Kotkapura, a man put on some lipstick, donned a salwar kameez (traditional Indian women’s dress), and impersonated his girlfriend so that he could take her exam for her.  Notably, he carried two fake ID cards, but was handed over to the police after his fingerprints did not pass biometric inspection – whilst cheating might be rampant in India, it is rightly recognised as what it actually is – fraud.

The ability to buy fake IDs, like those mentioned above, plays a key role in many impersonation attempts.  Unfortunately, fake IDs are relatively easy to buy, and are only getting more convincing with the help of AI and advanced editing tools.  Of course in some cases, even when test centre staff recognise a fake ID, corruption can allow these fraudulent candidates to slip through the cracks.  While uncommon, collusion between candidates and test centres is something we have encountered before, and it could potentially allow impersonators to sit an exam.

Similar to impersonation, surrogacy or proxy candidates are another examination risk associated with identity fraud.  This is when someone acts as a substitute for an exam candidate, but isn’t necessarily claiming to be the candidate.  One of our invigilators saw a case of surrogacy whilst working at an exam centre in Indonesia.  They asked a candidate for identification, which they could not provide, only to be told by this individual that they were a substitution for someone else who “could not make it.”  Our invigilator dealt with the situation promptly and ensured that the substitute candidate was removed from the exam centre.  Needless to say, the normalisation of surrogate candidates in certain regions is concerning and poses a significant risk to academic integrity.

Exam Procedural Issues

Both practical challenges and the risk of malpractice make accurately identifying candidates particularly difficult.  But certain exam procedures set by awarding bodies can further complicate the process.

While awarding organisations are united in their desire to prevent ID fraud and stop anyone taking an exam who shouldn’t, each separate organisation has their own way of doing things.  Some awarding organisations will let a candidate take an exam without an ID, but want it to be reported afterwards.  Meanwhile, others will only accept one specific form of ID, and if the candidate cannot provide that exact document, they are not allowed to sit the exam at all.

There are also many awarding organisations that are extremely reluctant to turn people away on exam day.  This makes it harder to prevent someone from taking an exam, even if they do not have the ‘required’ documentation.

Where Do We Go From Here?

As we have seen, verifying candidate identities in exams across the globe is anything but straightforward.  From varying ID standards and digital identification issues, to fraud risks and inconsistent exam procedures, there are multiple factors that can compromise exam integrity.

To combat these challenges, a more standardised and collaborative approach is needed, as well as a greater understanding of global variants in documentation.  Ideally, awarding bodies, test centres, and invigilators should all work together to implement stronger verification methods, whether this be through improved training, better technology or clearer policies.

Ultimately, preventing exam fraud is not just about identifying rule-breakers; it is about ensuring a fair and reliable system for all test-takers.   With greater collaboration, we can move toward a future where identity verification is not only rigorous and secure, but also adaptable to the needs of a global testing environment.