FAQs

Recent Exam Changes | Studying for the Exam | Questions about the Exam

Recent Exam Changes

• What is the rationale underlying ACLAM’s reconfiguration of the certifying examination?
  ACLAM reviews the certification exam regularly to ensure that the examination process is fair, standardized, legal, defensible, valid, and effective in certifying laboratory animal veterinarians who have sufficient knowledge and skills to conduct the safe and effective practice of laboratory animal medicine, as defined by our Role Delineation Document (RDD). According to the American Board of Veterinary Specialties (ABVS) , the pass rate of the certification exam has been highly variable in the past; we have been unable to determine if the cause is the exam or the quality of the candidates' preparation. Several years ago, a professional examination consultant firm evaluated our exam process and presented 12 recommendations to the Board of Directors (BOD) for improvement, six of which were deemed high priorities. A committee was appointed to provide an implementation plan for the recommended changes to the examination process.
• What have been the major steps taken to implement the consultant’s report?
  The Reconfiguration Committee met through teleconferencing multiple times with the consultant in 2005, eventually submitting action items to the BOD giving recommendations for the implementation of consultant recommendations. Chief among these were (1) the need to closely align the certifying examination with the Role Delineation Document (RDD), in order to base the exam on our accepted list of skills and knowledge used by a certified laboratory animal veterinarian, and (2) the need to base the exam scoring (pass point) on criterion-referenced standards through the use of a Standard Setting Study (SSS), eliminating the fixed 66% pass point, which the consultant advised was not legally defensible. (Details on each of these below.)
• How was the exam aligned with the RDD?
  The Exam Committee and Exam Review Committee met with the consultant in early 2006 in order to review the effective alignment of test items with the current RDD, which describes the tasks a board-certified laboratory animal veterinarian should be able to complete, and the knowledge and skills a board-certified laboratory animal veterinarian should use to complete them. The alignment of test items was accomplished with no more than 1% variance from the RDD task distribution. All reference to “traditional” 4 categories was removed, in order to emphasize reliance on the RDD. The BOD approved the balancing of the total exam (not the individual written and practical exams) to the RDD, effective with the 2007 exam, at the recommendation of the CASTLE consultant.
• Why do we need the role delineation document for the exam, and how is information on the RDD used in designing the exam?
  The CASTLE Report (2005) stated: “ACLAM is vulnerable to criticism and perhaps litigation in several areas, especially the lack of direct linkage between our task analysis (the RDD) and the exam…” Recommendation #2 from that report stated: “It is very important when assembling new forms of the examination for ACLAM to employ the specifications derived from the Role Delineation Document (High Priority).” Recommendation #3 from that report stated: “In implementing specifications based on the Role Delineation Document, ACLAM should use only the percentages expressed, without varying within the limits indicated. Following this recommendation will serve to limit content sampling bias even further.” After the BOD voted to implement these recommendations for the 2006 Exam (and subsequent exams), the Exam Committee, with help from the Exam Review Committee, spent considerable time properly assigning a single task from the RDD to every test item in the ACLAM database, and ensuring that each examination is balanced to the RDD as indicated.
• Are both the written and practical exams individually balanced across the RDD? Did this change recently? Why?
  The issue of changing the RDD distribution to be spread over both exams was a recommendation from the Exam Committee and the Reconfiguration Subcommittee, and it was recommended by our consultant. A report from the CASTLE Worldwide consultant in September 2006 stated: “In discussions that followed the 2004 Report, CASTLE advised ACLAM that each part of the test (written and practical) should adhere to test specifications. Now, having attended an Examination Review Committee meeting and conducted the standard setting study, CASTLE has gained greater familiarity with the examination and modifies its advice to ACLAM: the optimal strategy would be a single examination containing both item types, fully aligned with specifications based on the Role Delineation Document and having a single, overall passing standard. The rationale for the new advice is that various areas of the Role Delineation Document can not reasonably be tested in the practical portion of the examination. By combining the two parts of the examination, ACLAM can assess specified content using the most appropriate item type.” This recommendation was submitted to the BOD in September 2006, and was approved. The BOD also approved the elimination of the allowance to pass one part of the exam only, effective 2010, thus allowing a full 3 years for anyone already planning to sit the 2007 exam for the first time. This announcement was made on the website.
• Is the RDD still relevant?
  Since the first implementation of the RDD in 1997, the Certification Oversight Committee (COC) has been charged with reviewing the document annually, and convening an appropriately constituted review group every 5 years for more comprehensive review.
  For the 2007 RDD review, ACLAM retained the services of a professional testing and consultation service to assist the COC in this process. The most important step in the process was to design and construct a Role Delineation Survey that will be administered to all ACLAM members. A task force of 19 ACLAM Diplomates who represented a cross-section of ACLAM demographics met with the consultants on May 9-10, 2007, in Tucson, Arizona, at the site of the Forum. This group was charged with ensuring that the content of the survey appropriately probes the specialty of laboratory animal medicine, such that the results will be the most accurate representation possible for our specialty. The RDD survey was delivered soon after the Forum to each Diplomate in an electronic format for response within about one month. The results of the survey will instruct the efforts of the panel to reconvene, and revise, as necessary, the current RDD.
• Why the emphasis on the RDD? What else does the BOD do with the RDD?
  The RDD defines the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to be considered an ACLAM-certified laboratory animal specialist. The RDD was first developed and written in 1997 during a meeting of a diverse group of ACLAM Diplomates who identified and characterized the job tasks and knowledge areas of our specialty. In addition, the RDD defined the species distribution best representing the “patient population” of an ACLAM Diplomate. The RDD was finalized after a survey of all Diplomates was administered and analyzed. In 2002, the first comprehensive RDD review resulted in several changes to the original, and is the version currently used by ACLAM.
  
  Originally, the RDD became the standardizing template for designing ACLAM-recognized training programs. Since that time, the RDD has evolved into an examination template against which the number and categories of questions included on the ACLAM certification examination must be aligned. The RDD defines our specialty, and will continue to be used in the future to balance our certification examination by tasks, knowledge areas, and species, and to provide the standard for our recognized training programs. It is also possible in future years that the RDD will be used more specifically as a basis for Continuing Education efforts by ACLAM. As you all know, our specialty changes over the years, sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly, depending on the issue. A periodic review and update of the RDD ensures that our specialty is defined accurately and appropriately in the future.
  [RDD - file size/type]
• What is criterion referencing, and how does it apply to the ACLAM Certification Exam?
  Criterion referencing means that an exam is based on specific knowledge criteria, and not on comparative performance of the candidates (norm referencing, also known as “grading on a curve”). It is contrary to recommendations from the American Board of Veterinary Specialties and to recommendations of the expert community of certification examination experts, such as our consultants, to use norm referencing. General veterinary licensure examinations eliminated norm referencing over 15 years ago. Norm referencing is simply no longer acceptable for high-stakes certification examinations in any field.
• How was criterion referencing accomplished?
  A 14-member Standard Setting Study panel, comprised primarily of recent ACLAM Diplomates (on the advice of the consultant), was selected. The CASTLE consultant strongly recommended that recently certified would be better able, with instructions and discussion, to formulate and judge the minimum performance level required for certification. Other criteria that members of the panel filled, in compliance with deliberations of the COC Subcommittee to Implement Exam Consultant Recommendations, were the following:
  
  • No member, or at most one, has been involved in ACLAM Exam production and development within the last 10 years.
  • At least 2 members were involved in training programs for ACLAM candidates.
  • At least 2 members were Diplomates who work in government (including military) or industry (including animal vendors).
  • At least 2 members qualified for certification through the alternate (experience) route.
  • Members fit multiple categories, with at least one member having some emphasis in each of the primary species (especially nonhuman primates and mice)
  
  This panel met one week after the administration of the 2006 Examination, in order to set a criterion-referenced passing score (cut score) for the 2006 Exam. (See "What is a cut score?" for a description of the Standard Setting Study). The consultant reviewed the scoring of the 2006 exam, conducted a statistical analysis of the resulting data, and made statistical recommendations for the passing score to the BOD.
• What is a cut score (passing point)? Why was the old cut score of 66% not good enough?
  A cut score is the score that determines pass or fail on the certifying examination. The historic standard of 66% was the judgment of our predecessors, based on their assessment of the performance of a minimally competent, but board-certifiable laboratory animal veterinarian on the exams they used for certification. The problem with this method is that it is an entirely arbitrary standard. Also, we were not controlling the difficulty level of the exam, other than selecting test items with Difficulty Index of 30-70% (which means the percentage of candidates who correctly answered the test item in previous administration). In addition, at times in years past, the 66% cut score was adjusted on a given examination, based on the performance of that year’s candidate group. The CASTLE Report (2005) stated: “ACLAM is vulnerable to criticism and perhaps litigation in several areas, especially...the lack of a defensible method to determine the cut-score; the latter has been identified also by ABVS.” Recommendation #4 from that report stated: “ACLAM should conduct a professional Standard Setting Study (SSS) using an appropriate criterion-referenced method, with a full and complete report of the study and its results (High Priority).” The high-stakes certification decision of pass or fail needs to be based on specific criteria, and the standard should not vary from year to year. Thus, ACLAM changed from a fixed passing point (cut score) of 66% to the use of a Standard Setting Study for the 2006 Examination.
• How is the cut score determined?
  The Angoff Modified Technique is the method ACLAM used in 2006 to determine the passing standard. This procedure is the most widely employed and one of the most thoroughly researched in the field of licensure and certification testing. Using the Angoff Modified Technique, a group of ACLAM Diplomates, chosen to represent the spectrum of activities in our specialty (see "How was criterion referencing accomplished?"), served as subject matter experts in a peer review session to evaluate the exam. The panel evaluated each item on the exam by estimating the percentage of the minimally acceptable candidate group that would answer the question correctly. In other words, each member of the selected panel conceptualizes whether a hypothetical candidate they would consider to meet the minimum standard for the ACLAM profession would be likely to answer the question correctly. These estimates, which the panelists made independently, were then combined across all panelists and questions, the result of which represented the minimally acceptable score. The peer review session for standard setting took place at the 2006 ACLAM Forum with the assistance and guidance of CASTLE Worldwide, which has conducted many of these studies for specialty certification organizations since 1987. CASTLE tabulated and analyzed the findings, and presented the results to the BOD for approval. The consultant’s advice was that the Standard Setting Study should be repeated again whenever there are significant changes in the Role Delineation Document that alter the character of the examination; this may be expected to occur every 5 to 7 years. The method to ensure consistency of the pass point from year to year (between standard-setting studies) is called equating (explained in "How does ACLAM ensure that there are no major differences in exam difficulty and fairness from one year to another?").
  
  Because the Standard Setting Study (SSS)’s establishment of the cut score (passing point) is so critical to validity of the exam, the process was recently reviewed by a second consultant psychometrician. Interviews with members of the 2006 SSS have confirmed the confidence of that group in their work product. The second psychometrician’s opinion is that the SSS was properly conducted.
• How does ACLAM ensure that there are no major differences in exam difficulty and fairness from one year to another?
  Based on the recommendations of the exam consultant, ACLAM uses a process called equating. The following description from our consultant, CASTLE Worldwide, explains the process: “ACLAM established a criterion-referenced passing standard for each part of the test in June 2006, using versions of the test administered at that time. Because new versions of the examinations may be either easier or more difficult than the 2006 versions, ACLAM contracted with CASTLE to equate the new versions introduced in 2007 to the 2006 examinations in order to correct for these differences. On behalf of ACLAM, CASTLE uses accepted statistical methods to ensure that candidates are not penalized or rewarded when one version of a test is more or less difficult than another version.”
  
  In preparing for the study, ACLAM and CASTLE worked together to review item analysis statistics and identified a set of high-quality questions for both the written and practical from the anchor versions of the test (2006 versions) to be used as the equating pool (embedded equator items) for the 2007 examination. In addition, each new version of the examination has questions that are unique to it because these items were not included in the 2006 forms. CASTLE instructed ACLAM to place the equator items in the 2007 tests in the same location that they occupied sequentially in the 2006 examinations to control for the effect of candidate fatigue. (Equating questions do not need to stay the same on every subsequent form of the exam, as long as they are unchanged from the anchor exam (in this case, the 2006 exam); in other words, we may choose a different set of equators for the 2008 exam versus the 2007 exam.)
  
  The next step in preparing for the study involved scoring the anchor examination in CASTLE's system. ACLAM provided CASTLE with the answer strings (electronic files containing the answers candidates provided for each question along with the candidate identification number) for the written and practical tests for 2006. Using the answer keys, CASTLE scored these examinations. ACLAM administered new versions of its examinations on July 8, 2007, scanned the answer sheets, and sent the 2007 answer strings to CASTLE. Using the answer key for the 2007 examinations, CASTLE scored each test in its system to generate raw scores for each candidate and then conducted the equating study, consistent with the Tucker model for linear equating for nonrandom groups and an embedded group of equator items. The calculation employs a complex linear regression formula to identify and control variance due to the difference in the ability of the two groups, and to isolate the difference in item difficulty between the two versions. Based on these calculations, CASTLE determined the score that candidates taking a new version would have achieved if they had taken the anchor version of the examinations. The BOD approved the equating studies for the written and practical examinations and approved equated scores for 2007 candidates, determining the pass/fail decision.
• What other changes have been made in the exam?
  The number of items on the written test was reduced from over 400 to 240. The number of items on the practical test was reduced from over 200 to 140. All questions were written in multiple choice format. The restrictive advice of 50% newly written questions was removed, in order to use more questions with known performance characteristics. The 2007 examination had a number of exact duplicate questions from the 2006 exam to use for statistical equating (see "How does ACLAM ensure that there are no major differences in exam difficulty and fairness from one year to another?" for a description of the equating process), and (for the first time) used color photographs in the practical test booklet rather than projected images. The EC made this decision because there was a record number of people taking the practical, and they didn’t think they would have adequate seating in the test room to allow all candidates a good view of the projected images. It also fit in with the plan to combine the two exams in 2010. The EC also believed candidates would consider this a positive change because it removed the time pressure. Although the exam has been shortened, candidates are still given the same amount of time to complete the exam. The written and practical components of the exam were combined in 2010 based on the consultant's recommendation. The only differences in the exams were the addition of pictures, and the balance across the RDD could only be effectively secured by balancing across both exams. All candidates who were promised “three tries” at the exam, with partial passing as a possibility, were given that opportunity using the existing system.
• Why hasn’t ACLAM made the exam changes public?
  ACLAM has endeavored to keep Diplomates apprised of all changes in the exam process, through announcements in the newsletter and in General Business Meetings, special Town Meetings held at AALAS and AVMA meetings and the ACLAM Forum, and changes posted on the web site. This FAQ is the latest of these efforts. Continued opportunities to become involved in efforts aimed at certification examination improvements and related issues are available to all Diplomates.

top

Studying for the Exam

• Why did ACLAM eliminate the exam review sessions which used to provide continuing education to Diplomates?
  Our consultants advised us that the dual purpose of certification and continuing education is not appropriate for a high-stakes certification exam. This exam should serve a single purpose, to distinguish board-certified specialists from those who do not qualify. Failure to adhere to adequate security measures can result in sharing, intentionally or unintentionally, of test context, materials covered, and potentially even test items, making the examination unfair for others, especially those seeking certification by the experience route. In addition, the requirement for ACLAM members to produce large numbers of new test items every year strains the abilities of the Exam Committee and other associated committees to produce high-quality test items, threatening the quality of the overall exam. Most importantly, the consultant advised that we were not in compliance with accepted (and legally defensible) psychometric standards if we continue to use the exam for multiple purposes. While releasing sample questions may be appropriate, proper exam security demands that only those committees involved with preparing and reviewing the exams for content validity be given access.
• Why can’t training program directors review the exam each year? If they can’t see the exam, how do they know what to teach?
  Our testing consultants strongly recommend that the examination should be used only for certification purposes, not as continuing education. Since the exam is directly related to the RDD, Diplomates do not need to see the exam to know what is covered. Training program directors, who are among the most experienced ACLAM Diplomates and have many years of experience in preparing candidates, should continue to prepare those candidates in the ways that have a history of success, using source materials that, in their experience, cover the material in the RDD well.
• Does the reuse of test items to a greater extent mean that there will be no questions, or fewer questions, covering recent journal articles?
  Recent retrospective analysis indicates that the 2005 exam contained 41.6% new questions, the 2006 exam contained 23% new questions, and the 2007 exam contained 25.5% new questions. Often, these new questions are drawn from current literature and recent publications. New questions may also be added from standard laboratory animal resources (such as textbooks and regulations). We attempt to focus all questions to the important topics of laboratory animal medicine as highlighted in the ACLAM Role Delineation Document. Depending on the significance of new publications in the field, new questions will certainly be included in future exams to cover material appropriately linked to the RDD. The candidate should continue to study new publications with a critical eye on the RDD. The consultant’s strong recommendation was that no new questions be used for scoring on the exams. Although we are not yet able to follow this recommendation, future Exam Committees will build a database of “test items” (also known as test market items or preliminary test items) used to gather statistics for evaluation of future use; such items will not count toward candidates scores. This test item database could potentially add a number of questions to future exams, making them slightly longer. The 2006 exam did not contain any new items that were scored only for statistical purposes; the 2007 exam contained only four test items. The consultant also recommended that there be no questions based solely on new research that does not form part of our professionally accepted body of knowledge; asking a question based on recent research which was subsequently shown to be invalid would jeopardize the validity of the examination. We have thus removed questions that simply require rote memorization from a recent journal article.
• What is the recommended list of study references? The suggested reference lists are very broad, and not always realistic.
  The recommended list of references is available for download [link]. References are categorized as primary and supplemental materials and resources. Candidates should concentrate on traditional study materials, including the primary materials on the reference list. The list of supplemental materials is admittedly very broad, and some of the references are 10-20 years old, but they represent important sources of material for the laboratory animal veterinarian.
• What percentage of test questions cover the core references?
  There is no longer an Exam Committee policy/process to delimit “core” questions, or to fix a certain percentage of core questions on the exam. The distribution of exam questions must follow the RDD, and certainly the majority of exam questions will come from the primary materials on the [reference list].
• Is it true that every question must have two references?
  Yes. In recent years, the Examination Committee has ensured that two references exist for answers to questions unless the information contained within the first reference is widely accepted as important, confirmed knowledge within the field. The Exam Committee has worked to eliminate any questions covering material that is not yet widely accepted in the field, because such questions would need to be discarded if the source is disproved.
• Which journals are important to review for the exam?
  See the [recommended list of references] for journal titles. The exam typically covers only recent volumes of journals; important topics or information contained in journals that are more than 3 years old usually will have been incorporated into a newer text edition that appears on the primary materials list, or will have been mentioned in more recent journal articles elaborating on the subject. For this reason, it is unlikely that a single “fact” found only in a journal more than 3 years old would form the basis of a question.
• Are classical animal models and AFIP Fascicles covered?
  The AFIP Fascicles are no longer used as primary references for exam items. Knowledge of spontaneous and induced animal models is part of Task 9 in the RDD. Some older animal models are still used, while others are part of the knowledge base for newer animal models; therefore, these models are covered in the exam.
• What reference can be used to study the statistics that may be on the exam?
  ACLAM does not list a specific text for many general subjects that laboratory animal veterinarians should be familiar with. Any good college-level statistics textbook should provide the basic biostatistical information important for laboratory animal veterinarians. The current edition of Laboratory Animal Medicine (Chapter 10, pp. 384-386) and many of the older ACLAM Blue Book series texts have chapters describing sampling techniques, sentinel planning, epidemiology, and other topics containing applied statistical methods important for the field.
• Why do the exam questions focus on obscure information instead of focusing on the overall conclusions of published articles?
  The Exam Committee has made a concerted effort to eliminate questions that ask “in a recently published article, what was ____?”. Questions are not asked about journal articles just to cover the journals; rather, questions are asked about important concepts detailed in the RDD that are elucidated by journal articles. However, test items may reference a commonly known fact that any minimally qualified Diplomate should know.
• Since most current animal facilities do not have parasites other than pinworms/mites, why does this exam test for historical ones?
  Parasitology, especially parasitic diseases that can become established in a colony and zoonotic parasitic diseases, is part of Task 1 of the RDD. Although modern animal facilities obtain most of their animals from well-managed vendors who provide parasite-free animals in order to minimize research variables, the world at large is not so controlled. Laboratory animal veterinarians still need to work with non-purpose-bred animals or wild-caught animals in some situations. Opportunities for cross-contamination or import of parasitic organisms no longer frequently seen makes the knowledge of parasites relevant for the certified laboratory animal veterinarian. One might ask the same question about bacteria, viruses, fungi, or other pathogenic organisms successfully screened by our high-quality vendors and facilities, and the answer would be the same. Unless and until such pathogens are completely eradicated, the trained professional must have some knowledge of them, although the emphasis will certainly be heavier on those encountered regularly.
• Will any sample questions be made available?
  This question is still under consideration. Unlike the SAT, ACT or MCAT exams, or other standardized exams with large databases, ACLAM does not have an extremely large database of validated test items. Some of the study group organizations, such as LABSG and Camp ACLAM, do a good job of producing “exam-like” questions.

top

Questions about the Exam

• Why does the exam not reflect the information and skills needed to be a laboratory animal veterinarian?
  ACLAM has tried very hard in recent years to ensure the fairness and relevance of the certifying examination by making certain that the RDD lists the tasks, knowledge, and skills required in the field and that the test items are carefully linked to the RDD. Diplomates should participate in the review and revision of the RDD to ensure that this document reflects the knowledge and skills required to be a laboratory animal veterinarian.
• Could current ACLAM Diplomates really pass the examination?
  The simple answer is yes. The Diplomate would have to study in order to pass the examination -- this is a high-stakes examination designed to qualify entry-level specialists into the field, and it is intentionally difficult in order to ensure the capabilities of any who hold the title of Diplomate. As with any field after the certification hurdle has been cleared, the Diplomate may have concentrated on any of the myriad subspecialty areas in the field, such as administration, facility design, special species, surgery, or viral research. Without studying the broadly based material required for entry into the field, that experienced Diplomate might not pass the rigorous entry exam. However, each and every Diplomate has demonstrated the necessary entry-level knowledge and skills once in their career, and each continues to meet ACLAM’s approved standards for recertification in order to maintain Diplomate status.
• Is the tested information necessary to be a successful laboratory animal veterinarian?
  Yes. The RDD states: "The board certified laboratory animal medicine specialist is a veterinarian with specialized training and experience whose mission is to advance the humane care and responsible use of laboratory animals. This mission is fulfilled through the application of specific knowledge to safely and effectively perform the tasks listed [in the RDD].
• Is there any correlation between pass rate and completion of a training program versus the experience route?
  This interesting question has significance for ACLAM’s “pipeline” issue, especially in the face of changing support for many approved training programs and the appearance of many new training programs. Unfortunately, the correlative statistics needed to answer this question beyond speculative opinions are minimal.
• Is there any correlation between job performance as rated by one’s employer and pass rate on the examination?
  We all hope that Diplomates perform well in their jobs, and are rated highly. We believe that our approved training programs, experience evaluations, and the subsequent certification process identify individuals who have proven their competence in the field of laboratory animal medicine. The purpose of the exam is only to distinguish the non-qualified from the qualified based upon standards set by ACLAM. Individual job performance is so dependent on local factors that an objective analysis such as suggested by the question would be difficult or impossible.
• What are some veterinary specialties doing?
  The American Board of Veterinary Specialties (ABVS) hosted workshops for their constituent colleges (including ACLAM) in 2006 and 2007 on the subject of certification processes, in an attempt to encourage the specialty colleges to better meet ABVS standards. The 2006 presentation was given by our CASTLE Worldwide consultant, who discussed how specialty examinations should meet commonly accepted psychometric standards, especially as related to certification examination standards. The 2007 presentation was given by our Thomson Prometric consultant, discussing job analysis (role delineation).
  
  The American College of Veterinary Pathologists (ACVP) is creating a Role Delineation Survey, will create Role Delineation Documents for each specialty, and will evaluate their examination process based on their Role Delineation Document. The pathology certification process must address the validation of minimal passing scores just as ACLAM has done recently. Creating a fair, relevant, legally defensible examination is now one of ACVP’s highest priorities. ACVP faces similar challenges explaining to Diplomates why this process is necessary and why the examination process must be periodically evaluated and occasionally modified. It is apparent that ACLAM is being proactive, compared to other veterinary specialties, but that all will be following in the footsteps of our efforts.
• Will changes in the exam reduce or raise the bar to entry into ACLAM?
  The changes in the exam and examination process were not implemented with a goal of either lowering or raising the bar for ACLAM certification; they were intended to ensure the exam is fair, consistent, and legally defensible. The pass rates on the 2006 and 2007 exams (respectively, 22% written, 58.5% practical and 24% written, 54% practical) were lower than most Diplomates would like. However, the standard for passing the exam is now established by psychometrically accepted methods, based on the efforts of a select Standard Setting Panel (see "How is the cut score determined?" on Standard Setting Study). The consistency of future exams is ensured with the process of equating (see "How does ACLAM ensure that there are no major differences in exam difficulty and fairness from one year to another?" on equating), thus assuring a level playing field for all candidates. The COC was charged with conducting a comprehensive analysis of the exam success rate, to include not only exam-related factors but also possible changes in the candidate pool, training programs, and availability of training resources.
• Won’t a lower exam success rate impact the critical need for new ACLAM Diplomates?
  The “pipeline issue” is of concern to all Diplomates, and remains a priority of the BOD, the Career Pathways Committee, and others. As above, the changes taking place in the certifying examination are not aimed at addressing this problem, but at improving the exam process itself.
• Can candidates get additional information regarding how they scored? Providing information about each task, especially since the RDD is touted as the guideline to be used in studying, would be more valuable.
  The Exam Committee sent reports of performance on groups of tasks from the RDD to failed candidates following the 2006 and 2007 exams. Numeric score reports were not issued; as the examination is used only to make pass/fail decisions, ACLAM holds that all who pass are equally qualified. Candidates who fail to attain certification have expressed a wish to have more definitive information provided regarding their performance on individual RDD tasks, in order to help guide future studying. The Exam Committee is investigating statistical and scoring software packages that would allow for a more detailed analysis to be shared with candidates who fail. The BOD will consider other suggestions for release of information, such as release of the size of the gap between the passing point and the candidate’s performance.

top