We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
  • SKIP TO CONTENT
  • SKIP NAVIGATION
  • Drug Products
    • Books
    • FDAnews Books Library
    • Events
    • Form 483s Database
    • Subscription Newsletters
    • Free Newsletters
    • Webinar Training Pass
    • eCFR and Guidances
  • Device Products
    • Books
    • FDAnews Books Library
    • Events
    • Form 483s Database
    • Subscription Newsletters
    • Free Newsletters
    • Webinar Training Pass
    • eCFR and Guidances
  • Clinical Products
  • Advertising
  • White Papers
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • COVID-19
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Home » Qualified or Certified. Which is Better?

Qualified or Certified. Which is Better?

August 20, 2014

Unclear about the difference between qualification and certification? If so, you aren’t alone. Though many companies make a distinction between the two when they describe employees who have received training for a specific job, they don’t always agree on what that distinction is, or even what each of the terms means. Here are some definitions taken from a small survey of trainers:

“Qualification is done for a specific task; certification is done for a series of tasks.”

“Qualification equals field training; certification equals classroom training.”

“Qualification is done through internal trainers; certification is done through an outside body.”

“Qualification is an ongoing process; certification happens once.”

“Qualification equals on the job training plus experience and education, which allows individuals to produce desired results consistently. Certification equals documented evidence through pre-established programs that desired results are consistently obtained.”

What’s the Answer?

With such diverse opinions about qualification vs. certification, let’s turn to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary for definitions of these two terms.
Qualification: “to fit by training, skill or ability for a special purpose. To declare competent or adequate; synonym; certify; meet the required standard.”

Certification: “to attest authoritatively, to attest as being true or as represented or as meeting a standard. Usually applies to a written statement, especially one carrying a signature.”

From these definitions we might say the words are almost identical in meaning, at least according to the dictionary. The only difference is that some type of written document may be associated with certification. So if the definitions are similar, why the concern?

One problem lies in the connotations associated with the terms, especially with regard to the perceived status conferred by the word “certification.” Some organizations are reluctant to offer an official—sounding ‘‘certification’’ to employees for a variety of reasons. “If we certify some employees, what about the others?’ asked one training manager. “Are certified employees better than the rest?” A lead operator in a manufacturing organization wondered whether creating a group of “certified” employees would suggest that other, “uncertified” workers were somehow less capable than those holding certifications.

“At our organization the word ‘qualified’ is more acceptable than ‘certified,’” said one trainer. “What exactly do we mean by ‘certification?’ It sounds like it might have some legal status. On the other hand, I’ve run into a difference of opinion as to what ‘qualification’ means, too. I’d say the whole area is somewhat nebulous.”

Still other organizations seem to be unconcerned about making fine distinctions. “We call all our employees who have been through first-level training ‘certified,’” said one training professional. “I don’t think anyone’s ever questioned it. It’s not a problem for us.”

What’s Really Important?

How important are the differences between certification and qualification? In fact, do any real distinctions exist between the two? The answers lie in organizational attitudes toward certification vs. qualification and sometimes in legal considerations about which term to use. But whether employees are considered certified or qualified, drug and devicemakers share the same underlying need: to establish that their employees are competent to perform their jobs.

Regardless of what we call these employees, they all must he capable of helping the organization reach its goals. These include:

  • ensuring quality outcomes,
  • maximizing productivity,
  • containing costs,
  • eliminating turnover,
  • minimizing injuries, and
  • complying with federal regulations.

Meeting these goals calls for a workforce competent in performing its assigned tasks. And ensuring that employees are competent—regardless of whether we consider them qualified or certified—relies on providing the kind of training and performance evaluations that will ensure employees possess the skill and knowledge to do their jobs. As most drug and devicemakers now recognize, this means developing competency-based training for their workforces.

The Case for Competency-Based Training

The FDA has not published a guidance establishing acceptable procedures for personnel training. Neither has the agency specified strict training requirements. In the absence of firm guidelines for training, many in the industry have interpreted FDA commentary and audits to promote a competency-based approach to training, with valid and reliable training programs that produce measurable performance outcomes.

A competency-based approach to training employees begins with identifying the skills and knowledge (competencies) required to do a job by conducting a task analysis. Once job competencies are identified, training is developed around the competencies. This usually involves designing classroom instruction or on-the-job training aimed at conveying knowledge and developing hands-on training to convey skills. Written tests and performance evaluations are designed to measure the acquisition of skills and knowledge. All evaluations should include evidence that employees are capable of following applicable SOPs and batch records to produce a quality outcome.

Although we may never resolve the issue of certified vs. qualified, most training managers are justifiably more concerned with achieving excellent performance than they are about terminology. If your goal is to encourage excellence—and ensure that the training department plays a key role in contributing to your organization’s bottom line—your focus should be on competency-based training as a means of providing the best-trained workers for your organization.

Contact Information:

Dave Gallup
GMPTraining.com, Inc.
18585 Coastal Highway
Unit 10, #149
Rehoboth, DE  19971
215-870-5665
dagallup@gmptraining.com
www.gmptraining.com

Upcoming Events

  • 21Jan

    Virtual MDSAP Audits in the Era of COVID-19: What to Know and Do to Pass Virtual Audits

  • 26Jan

    Reducing Complexity in Starting Clinical Trials – More Patients, Faster Startup

  • 27Jan

    Medical Device Clinical Trials in China: Latest Regulatory Developments

  • 27Jan

    FDA’s Response to COVID-19: Fundamentals of Obtaining Emergency Use Authorizations

  • 09Feb

    Maintaining Your Risk-Based Cleaning and Disinfectant Programs: Best Practices During COVID-19

  • 10Feb

    FDA Under the Biden Administration: What’s to Come and What It Will Mean

Featured Products

  • Biological Risk Evaluation and Management for Medical Devices

  • GMP Inspection Preparation Checklist: A Tool for Internal Auditing

Featured Stories

  • Purple_Approved_Stamp.gif

    Seno Medical Gets Premarket Approval for Breast Cancer Diagnostic

  • Triple Vaccine, needles

    Moderna to Start New Trial Adding Third Shot of COVID-19 Vaccine

  • Supreme Court Rejects Merck’s Appeal for $2.5 Billion Patent Verdict Reinstatement

  • FDA clears text

    FDA Clears SCC’s Transfusion-Management Software

The Revised ICH E8: A Guide to New Clinical Trial Requirements

Learn More
  • Drug Products
    • Quality
    • Regulatory Affairs
    • GMPs
    • Inspections and Audits
    • Postmarket Safety
    • Submissions and Approvals
    • Research and Development
    • Commercial Operations
  • Device Products
    • Quality
    • Regulatory Affairs
    • QSR
    • Inspections and Audits
    • Postmarket Safety
    • Submissions and Approvals
    • Research and Development
    • Commercial Operations
  • Clinical Products
    • Trial Design
    • Data Integrity
    • GCP
    • Inspections and Audits
    • Transparency
  • Privacy Policy
  • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Footer Logo

300 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA

Phone 703.538.7600 – Fax 703.538.7676 – Toll free 888.838.5578

Copyright © 2021. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing