Enhancing the Credibility of National Professional License Interviews with Fair Procedures and Standards, Transparent Outcomes

- ACRC establishes “Measures to Strengthen the Management of National Professional License Interviews” and issues recommendations for Institutional Improvement

- Recommendations include specifying interview procedures and scoring criteria, expanding the scope of disclosure of interview results, and introducing a formal objection system

(May 27, 2026, ACRC)

Interviews for national professional licenses^* are expected to be conducted more transparently, encompassing everything from evaluation criteria and result notification to objection procedures.

* A licensing system that grants qualifications for highly specialized professional occupations, conducted pursuant to applicable individual legislation for each national professional license. The Human Resource Development Service of Korea (HRDK) is entrusted with the administration of 37 such licenses.

To enhance the overall objectivity and credibility of national professional license interviews, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC) has established “Measures to Strengthen the Management of National Professional License Interviews” and has issued recommendations for institutional improvement to the HRDK.

The national professional license interview is a process that evaluates not only applicants’ professional knowledge but also their capacity to perform occupational duties and their eligibility for the license, and has a direct bearing on the final outcome of the examination. Without sufficiently specific evaluation criteria, however, discrepancies in judgment may arise among interviewers, and candidates may fail to accept or comprehend the results.

In particular, the 2025 National Assembly’s Audit of State Affairs pointed out that the item-by-item scoring criteria for national professional license interviews were not sufficiently specific, underscoring the need to improve the fairness and credibility of interview administration.

According to the ACRC’s fact-finding investigation, interviewer training was conducted on the day of the examination within a very limited period of time, which restricted interviewers’ ability to thoroughly internalize the relevant instructions and evaluation criteria. Furthermore, the grounds for recusal were defined primarily around kinship, which proved insufficient to exclude persons with actual conflicts of interest.

In response, the Commission recommended that upon appointment, interviewers complete the relevant training, and that on the day of the examination, they be given sufficient time to review the evaluation criteria within the bounds of test security. The ACRC also recommended that the grounds for recusal be expanded and specified to include not only kinship but also school ties and other relationships involving actual conflicts of interest, thereby broadening the scope of recusal.

To reduce discrepancies in judgment among interviewers regarding identical responses from candidates, the ACRC further recommended the preparation of scoring criterion examples containing the intended purpose of each question, essential answer elements, and sample answers by grade level. Additionally, it recommended the establishment of a preliminary review process for grading criteria at the question development stage—involving external experts—in order to verify the specificity and validity of the criteria.

Furthermore, the ACRC recommended that when interview results are disclosed, candidates be provided with their scores for each evaluation criterion alongside the average scores of all successful candidates, enabling them to identify their weaknesses and use this information in preparing for retake examinations. It also recommended that candidates be permitted to file formal objections within a specified period following the announcement of results for matters that can be objectively verified, such as data entry errors, calculation errors, and errors in the application of the minimum passing score threshold for individual subjects.

Director General Kim Ki Sun of the Institutional Improvement Bureau stated, “Given that the national professional license examination is an important system that directly affects people’s career choices and livelihoods, it is essential to have a fair evaluation system that candidates can accept and comprehend.” He added, “Through this institutional improvement, discrepancies arising from interviewers’ subjective judgment are expected to be reduced, while candidates’ right to information and opportunities to file objections will be more robustly guaranteed.”