RE: Xe-133 HVL/CHP Criticisms

["David Scherer" <scherer@mirlink.wustl.edu>]

>First off - I have seen repeatedly in this thread comments that
>certification represents MINIMUM competence.  Therefore are questions with
>"neat twists" the sort of questions that should be there??  Especially since
>many of the candidates will be out of their main field when picking enough
>questions to answer.

>Neat twists are the sort of attention to detail that one gains with
>experience in a particular field and not normally expected to be known to
>someone without experience in that field.

"Neat twists" are the aspects of exam questions which probe the candidates
knowledge of the basic science behind the particular task.  The simpler,
routine HVL determination would be approppriate at the NRRPT level.  Whether an
involved with materials or machine produced radiation, any HP who practices
independently should be able to determine the HVL of beam composed of several
monoenergenic lines and should know the importance of collimation in Compton
vs. photoelectric interactions.  There is no "trick" requiring years of
experience to answer multiple choice questions in this area.  The sequence of
questions often helps step the candidate through the thought process which the
question writer had to search out on her own.

>It would appear to me that the CE classes impart less of a proficiency in
>and area than is expected to pass the test to begin with.  ie.  if one took
>CE classes in the areas questioned by the exam - they couldn't pass the
>exam.

I believe the proper goal of continuing education is continued, active
involvement in health physics.  To keep people mentally involved so they don't
grow too stale or out-of-date.  Unlike the exam, CE courses often focus on
specific applications in particular settings.  Since I don't agree with the
view that the exam tests subspecialty knowledge, I don't see an inconsistency.


>This is not meant to be a personal attack on any CHP or non CHP out there.
>So let's not start a fire fight here.

No offense is taken and none is intended in this reply.  Just a good, honest
airing of opinions and vision for the profession.

>Also regarding professionalism - one thing I have always felt was the mark
>of a professional was a belief that "knowing what one does NOT know" is
>often more important that what one knows.  That is to say that the
>professional will limit his areas of independant practice to areas of
>expertise - and if NOT an area of expertise will seek to gain sufficient
>familiarity or expertise before bidding on a job.  This speaks to a
>previous suggestion of certification in specific disciplines.  After all -
>to use the MD metaphor which has appeared throughout this thread - doctors
>aren't ALL GP's!

With regard to limiting one's practice, your point is well taked, and this a
part of the Code of Ethics of the AAHP/ABHP.  The exam I sat for had questions
on radon dosimetry, and I would never consult on that subject.  As you note,
MD's do not take all the specialty boards, but they all take the ABME exam and
the licensing exam, which tests their general medical knowledge.  In fact, a
"GP," i.e. a doctor without specialty training, is not eligible for any
specialty board.  Also note that PE exam (another model I have used in this
thread) is very similar in structure/level to the CHP exam.

David Scherer