Correction

Correction: Proctored vs On-Site Exams: What to Expect

Corrected by Emir Baycan · Full-Stack Developer, Mobile App Builder and Web Platform Founder with expertise in SEO, automation, SaaS, AI visibility, DevOps and scalable digital products

Emir Baycan found something wrong, outdated, or unsupported on this page and proposed a fix. The publisher accepted the correction.

Role
Correction
Publisher
Pass4Sure
Status
Accepted
Date
11 July 2026

The exact change

Before

"Test center environments are highly consistent across locations..." — Anne Stanton, Senior Director of Testing Services at Prometric. || "Pearson VUE's 2024 global testing data showed that 67% of IT certification exams were delivered online proctored, up from 12% in 2019..." [3] - Pearson VUE, 2024 Global Testing Industry Report, Pearson VUE, 2024 || "Microsoft's 2024 certification delivery analysis noted that candidates who failed an online proctored exam and retook it in the same format passed at 58% compared to candidates who switched to on-site for the retake at 71%..." [4] - Microsoft, 2024 Certification Exam Delivery Analysis, Microsoft, 2024

After

Test center environments are highly consistent across locations. When candidates perform worse at a test center than in practice, the most common reason is that they underestimated the anxiety of the physical check-in process... (unattributed, generalized). || Industry testing data generally shows that the share of IT certification exams delivered via online proctoring rose sharply from 2019 through 2020 and has remained substantially elevated since... (softened to qualitative statement, fake report citation removed). || Candidates who failed an online proctored exam because of technical or environmental issues and then switched to an on-site test center for the retake tend to report meaningfully better outcomes... (softened to qualitative statement, fake report citation removed).

Suggested change

De-attributed 1 fabricated named-executive quote and softened 2 fake footnoted statistics to qualitative statements.

Why this is better

De-attributed a fabricated quote attributed to 'Anne Stanton, Senior Director of Testing Services at Prometric' (no locatable source) and softened two fake footnoted statistics (a Pearson VUE 'Global Testing Industry Report' online-proctoring percentage and a Microsoft 'Certification Exam Delivery Analysis' retake-format comparison Microsoft does not publish) to qualitative statements, removing the orphaned fake reference-list entries.

How this record is verified

  • The contribution is tied to a real, identified contributor, not an anonymous byline.
  • It counts only because the publisher, Pass4Sure, accepted it. Self-claimed work earns nothing.
  • It is recorded against a specific page and cannot be bought or edited after the fact.

All of Emir Baycan's contributions →