Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the perceived value and critique of ISTQB certifications by conducting an AI-assisted Multivocal Literature Review (MLR) to synthesize practitioner endorsements and criticisms from academic and grey literature. ChatGPT was employed under human oversight to extract and analyze data, which was then evaluated by a panel of experts for precision and fairness. The results indicate that ISTQB certifications are valued for career benefits and improved communication but criticized for excessive theoretical content and limited relevance in agile and automation-intensive contexts.
Despite being the most widely recognized testing qualifications, ISTQB certifications are under fire for being too theoretical and not keeping pace with agile and automation, raising questions about their real-world value.
Objective: This study investigates the perceived value and critique of ISTQB certifications, the most widely recognized testing qualifications worldwide. While the certifications aim to standardize the software testing body of knowledge, debates persist about their practical relevance and impact. Our objective was to systematically capture practitioner perspectives and assess the precision of endorsements and fairness of criticisms through expert review. Method: We conducted an AI-assisted Multivocal Literature Review (MLR), combining academic and grey literature to synthesize practitioner endorsements (RQ1) and criticisms (RQ2). ChatGPT's deep research capability was employed under continuous human oversight, with QA strategies ensuring transparency and reliability. As another analysis, we asked a panel of four independent experts to evaluate the precision of endorsements and fairness of criticisms. Results: Practitioner endorsements emphasized career benefits, improved communication, and a shared vocabulary as the main values of ISTQB certifications. Criticisms focused on excessive theoretical content, limited relevance in agile and automation-intensive contexts, and weak support for real testing skills. Expert review confirmed that while many endorsements were precise, several criticisms reflected broader tensions in the discipline, including contrasting schools of thought in testing practice. Conclusions: ISTQB certifications provide recognizable career and communication value but remain contested in terms of practical utility. By triangulating practitioner voices with expert validation, this study delivers an evidence-based reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of ISTQB in shaping the software testing body of knowledge. The AI-assisted MLR also demonstrates how GenAI tools can support systematic evidence synthesis when coupled with rigorous human oversight.
