Dunno any more about IGP than anyone else. But I can speak to this
question. Psychometric validation is used to ensure that a question, and by
extension an exam, is defensible and to some extent agnostic of the
content. In theory, every question is written in such a way that someone
who gets that question right passes, and someone who gets that question
wrong fails. This is obviously an impossible standard if for no other
reason than random guesses will sometimes pick a correct answer. But the
items can be studied and pretty clear correlation made between items and
passing if the items are good. Contrariwise, if lots of people who
otherwise pass an exam get a question wrong, it could be a very challenging
question....but it could also be a *wrong* question. Statistics are used to
measure this.
At the same time, this also refers to some extent to how the questions are
written. For example, T/F questions are not psychometrically valid because
they are guessable. Similarly, all of the above/none of the above
questions, or questions where there is one long answer and three short
ones, all give clues as to the correct answer.
With respect to the passing score, the final step in exam development is to
have a group take it and, based on their results, determine what the
"right" passing score is. This often includes a group of subject matter
experts who get the initial group scores and, based on item performance and
statistical analysis, "set" the passing score.
All of this is absolutely 100% commonplace in formal certification
development. I worked on the CompTIA CDIA+ in 2002 or so, the TAWPI ICP
2003-2006 or so, and of course our own ICP exam and we all followed the
same processes using external psychometric firms (in our case, Prometric).
At the same time, an exam for a content area can be very thorough and
knowledgeable without being psychometrically valid (and therefore not as
defensible as those that have gone through that process). So it's much more
than just the knowledge in the field - it's how demonstration of that
knowledge is validated through the examination process.
I am also interested in the recertification requirements; regarding cost, I
am sure that ARMA determined it based on a number of factors to which I am
not privy and so can't opine on. But let me close by saying that it appears
ARMA has dotted the i's and crossed the t's with respect to exam
development and that their stated adherence to ISO 17024's procedures means
that examination process-wise the IGP should be defensible. I have no
opinions on the content as I haven't taken it yet. :)
All the best,
Jesse Wilkins, CIP, CRM
Director, Research & Development
AIIM
[log in to unmask]
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
|
