Learner Reviews and Outcomes

What makes a learner review publishable

A review should be linked to a real learner and actual training relationship. Keep the original submission, date, course, delivery format and permission record. Edit only for agreed clarity or length, and never change the meaning. Disclose material incentives.

Use only personal details the learner approved. Initials or role descriptions can protect privacy, but the internal evidence should still establish authenticity. Remove claims that the organization cannot reasonably support.

Separate experience from outcome proof

A learner can honestly say that the course felt clear or that practice was useful. Claims about passing, application approval, promotion, salary, time-to-certification or organizational results need additional verification and careful wording.

One person’s result is not a typical-outcome promise. Do not imply that the course caused a promotion or raise unless evidence supports that conclusion. Include context that helps readers understand the individual nature of the result.

How pass rates should be calculated

A defensible pass rate needs a defined cohort, time period, eligible denominator, outcome-verification method, treatment of non-reporters and distinction between first attempts and eventual passes. Excluding unknown results can inflate the number.

PMI does not publish a universal global PMP pass rate. Industry estimates and a provider’s internal results are different evidence. No percentage should be published here until the method and underlying records can be reviewed.

• Define the start and end dates.
• Include every eligible learner consistently.
• Verify results rather than assume silence means passing.
• Separate first attempt from later attempts.
• Publish sample size and calculation method.

What this page will show when evidence is ready

Verified entries can be filtered by course and format, with dates and clear outcome labels. Corporate feedback should identify whether the speaker is authorized to represent the organization. Reviews that mention accessibility or support should not expose sensitive personal information.

Negative and mixed feedback should not be suppressed simply because it is less promotional. A useful review collection helps future learners understand fit, not just confidence.

Create a review-governance record before publishing

For each testimonial, retain the original submission, date, learner-course relationship, requested edits, final wording and consent scope. Record whether the learner approved a full name, initials, role, employer, city, photograph and outcome. Permission for one channel or campaign should not be assumed to cover every future use.

Outcome claims need a separate evidence field. A learner’s opinion about clarity or support is different from a verified examination result, promotion, salary change or organizational benefit. State the timeframe and context, avoid causal language that the evidence cannot support and do not present an exceptional result as typical.

For aggregate figures, preserve the cohort definition, denominator, dates, verification method, non-response treatment and calculation. Assign a review date and an accountable owner. Remove or update a claim when the evidence expires, the methodology changes or consent is withdrawn according to the applicable agreement.

Publish a balanced collection rather than selecting only extravagant praise. Specific feedback about pace, format, support and preparation fit helps candidates make a decision. A smaller set of real, permissioned reviews is more credible than a large wall of unverifiable names and outcomes.

Provide a clear correction channel for reviewers and readers. When a factual error is reported, preserve the original record, investigate the evidence and document any update or removal instead of silently rewriting the claim.

• Retain original feedback and consent scope.
• Verify outcomes separately from opinions.
• Document every aggregate calculation.
• Assign an owner and review date.
• Publish specific, representative feedback.