Future Changes to Part II?

[Npkirner@aol.com]

(I don't read my Radsafe mail often, but there seems to be some interest in
what's happening with the Part II exam.  My apologies if this topic is stale.)

Please let me confirm the rumor that the Board is looking at ways of making
the Part II exam more consistent in its performance and more representative of
the skills needed by the professional health physicist.  Whether or not this
means a multiple choice test has not been decided.  We are a small enough
group that continuing the manually scored exams is not prohibited - PROVIDED -
it is justified by good test giving and taking criteria (psychometrics).  

There should be an article in the CHP Corner next month or so that describes
the process of reevaluating the specifications for the exam and the overall
goal in greater detail.  What I expect will result from the process is a
single exam that everyone will have to take (with examinees able to choose
questions, I am told we are administering 70 different exams).  It will
probably consist of more questions.  Whether or not it will be machine scored
is of secondary importance in my mind.  What we want to get over is any
perception that one exam is easier than another.  It's what the
psychometricians call consistency and reproducibility.

George Vargo, ABHP Past-Chair, is heading up the effort we're calling
"Reengineering Part II."  He held a job task analysis workshop at the
Albuquerque meeting.  Questionnaires will go out to CHPs to update our
existing "Domains of Practice,"  probably in May.  From the Domains, we will
identify the skills that are necessary to practice in those Domains.   This
part of the examination specification was due to be reevaluated this year
anyway.  The next step is to look at how we can most effectively and
consistently identify whether our candidates can perform those necessary
skills.  In the past that took the form of 6 mandatory 50 pt questions and any
4 of the remaining 8  100-pt. questions.  The format of these "big block"
questions almost demanded that some areas of the practice of health physics
would be evaluated in-depth and other areas of the practice would not be
addressed at all in the exam.  If you were "lucky" enough to have an exam that
matched your particular skill mix, the exam was "easy."  If not, the exam was
termed "hard."   If we go to more, smaller questions, we are more likely to be
able to consistently examine over the entire realm of practice.  That was the
reasoning behind specifying that candidates take the 6 mandatory 50-pt.
questions.  We are now reexamining whether we have to go even farther toward
that direction.  

Change is always difficult, but I doubt the Board will make a big change
without prior notification of all involved and internal validation of any new
exam structure or specifications.  NOTE:  There will be no changes for the
1999 exam.

Nancy Kirner, CHP
ABHP Chair
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html