RE: Future Changes to Part II?

["Earley, Jack" <jack.earley@rfets.gov>]

It looks as though you might be starting to understand why some people just
don't care about it anymore.
Jack

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Npkirner%aol.com@inet.rfets.gov
[SMTP:Npkirner%aol.com@inet.rfets.gov]
	Sent:	Wednesday, February 17, 1999 7:23 PM
	To:	Multiple recipients of list
	Subject:	Future Changes to Part II?

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