# Professional and Educational Organizations > Professional and Educational Organizations Discussion Forum >  NYS Practical Review Challenge

## Kristen P

I took the NYS Practical and just got my results. I missed it by 4 points!:(
I am going to challenge the results. Could someone help me to prepare for this process? I know I can bring books, etc., but what am I to expect going in?

----------


## obxeyeguy

Most of the answers on the practical are pretty cut and dry, as I remember.  PD, best lens choice, best frame choice, neut lenses, seg ht.  Where do you feel that your answers were correct and they scored you wrong?  Remember, parts of the test had 2 examiners, if they scored opposite, or big differance then you might have a chance.

----------


## hcjilson

It is my opinion that ANY examination requiring an "opinion" for a grade is not leagally defensible. There is no way to "prove" a pass or a fail. If the examiner didn't like the way you parted your hair you could have failed. My opinion is based on my experience as a member of the Massachusetts Board of Registration. We gave up our practical because Board members were not indemnified against suit brought by exam candidates. We later found and adopted a practical exam authored by Dr Ferguson who is also a contributing member of Optiboard, and may well be able to shed some light on how Kristn should best proceed.  hj

----------


## hcjilson

> Most of the answers on the practical are pretty cut and dry, as I remember.  PD, best lens choice, best frame choice, neut lenses, seg ht.  Where do you feel that your answers were correct and they scored you wrong?  Remember, parts of the test had 2 examiners, if they scored opposite, or big differance then you might have a chance.


In the area's above, with the exception of the PD...and perhaps but not necessarily neutraliztion ( unless the examiners can prove the sample had been "proved" by an independant source like Colt labs), the grade is an "opinion" and cannot be proved. I have spoken with members of the NY board on several occasions and they seem confident that their exam will hold up. I don't know why, .....its never been tested in a court of law, and if it were, I would follow that case very carefully.

There currently exists at least one completely objective, written practical examination, and its a mystery to me why it hasn't been adopted by all states.

----------


## Fezz

Harry brings up some very valid points. Opinion can be a very fickle way of GRADING someones performance. All sorts of things affect opinion. I applaud your efforts to challenge the results. My only suggestion is to study up, prepare, prepare, prepare! Good luck and please keep us posted!

----------


## ldyflsh

been there, done that....you'll get to review your exam and "check over" all of your answers. Bring whatever study materials you've used. The truth is, you won't find the 4 points you need. I also needed 4 points and was able to prove 1/2 point...their decision. You can challenge their scoring if you can support your original answers. Basically, you're set in a room with a group of students and a proctor... it's pretty stressful. Be prepared to retake the test in the spring..I won't tell you that it'll be any less stressful,but at least you'll know what you're up against going in. Good Luck!

----------


## hyperoptic

I got a 73 my practical and heres what I did to challenge, for every thing you wish to challenge you must write a reason for your challenge and provide proof.  I brought my CPP books and a copy of the new ansi standards, then for every question I felt I was wronged on I wrote two parts, the first was why I didnt feel I was wrong and the second assuming I was wrong how I would fix the problem after the glasses were made.  This explains why you said what you said and that you have a depth of knowledge to fix problems that may arise when you are practicing (be as specific as possible about things like induced prism and how panto will change seg etc.) when I took it in the spring they were using the new standards that could be enough to save you right there

----------


## hcjilson

Wouldn't it have been easier to have the test prove you to be correct, rather than having to "prove" to the examiners that you were correct?

----------


## HarryChiling

Wow, good for you.  The sceptics said it was a feat to behold and you made it happen.

----------


## hcjilson

> I got a 73 my practical and heres what I did to challenge, for every thing you wish to challenge you must write a reason for your challenge and provide proof.  I brought my CPP books and a copy of the new ansi standards, then for every question I felt I was wronged on I wrote two parts, the first was why I didnt feel I was wrong and the second assuming I was wrong how I would fix the problem after the glasses were made.  This explains why you said what you said and that you have a depth of knowledge to fix problems that may arise when you are practicing (be as specific as possible about things like induced prism and how panto will change seg etc.) when I took it in the spring they were using the new standards that could be enough to save you right there


Congratulations for not rolling over and challenging what you thought was an incorrect grade. I would like to remind those of us that may have forgotten what a practical exam is supposed to measure. It is a measure of "Entry Level skills" and nothing more. It is not complicated and if you have the practical knowledge gained in a clinical or apprenticship format you should not have a problem.

Hyper, in your post above you stated that you had to prove your answer. Did you ask the examiner the courtesy of proving his grade?

----------


## obxeyeguy

It's been a while, any luck??

----------


## hyperoptic

No I didnt ask them to prove anything I just proved my answer was indeed correct and yes lets hear an update

----------


## Barry Santini

> I took the NYS Practical and just got my results. I missed it by 4 points!:(
> I am going to challenge the results. Could someone help me to prepare for this process? I know I can bring books, etc., but what am I to expect going in?


Don't feel so bad! 

A friend of mine, who took the NYS ophthalmic dispensing practical TWICE, and failed both times (one time, he "hooked" the examiner's nose when attempting to place a frame on the examiner's face!).

Now, he's head of obstetrics at a large, LI mega-hospital complex.

Moral: either the OD practical is tougher than any of us thought, or...its fundamentally unscientific and unstructured.

Take yer pick!

Barry

----------


## SharonB

I am *so* disturbed to hear all these bad things about the New York State Pratical Examination. The NYS Board for Ophthalmic Dispensing, and Capitol Hill Testing Services (the contract holder for the outsourced exam) have worked very carefully to produce an examination that is objective, based on a task analysis, (in which over 700 licensed opticians in New York participated in, and undergoes constant revision), and is legally difensable in court. The examination tests practical skills that are not tested in the NOCE (ABO) examination, thus reducing testing redundancy. 
The NOCE exam is the written portion of the NYS licensing process. 
The practical exam tests the ability to actually perform the skills identified as "critical", or "frequently performed", in the task analysis, and the grading criteria are pre-set for the examiners.The examiners have no opinions. You can part your hair any way you want. Or, have no hair at all! It dosen't matter. 
The candidates are asked to fill out a laboratory order form in such a way as to produce eyeglasses that are COLTS and ANSI acceptable. They are also asked to do certain fitting and adjusting tasks, and to solve fitting complications. 
Again, the grading criteria are provided to the examiners, and they cannot, and do not, deviate from those criteria. 
Candidates are provided with frame measurements, PAL cut-out charts, patient profiles that detail patient concerns, PAL identifiers, and other aids. They are asked to neutralize either tri-focals, or PALs. Their responses must be within ANSI tolerances. 
They are asked to take monocular measurements (for PDs and seg. hgt.) and fill out the order form in such a way as to be able to produce a pair of ANSI or COLTS compliant glasses.
Is this so hard? 

_If a prospective optician cannot perform these tasks, then they have not been properly prepared._

New York State law requires a practicuum that is _task analysis based_, continuously psychometrically evaluated, and is proven to be an accurate discrimininator between entry level skilled, and unskilled, practitioners. All the data collected at the conclusion of an examination cycle are evaluated, and scaled if necessary. 
I have been involved in the NYS exam process since 1979, and I have never seen an exam process that was so fair, objective, and compassionate to the entry-level optician.

I think this exam has been the victim of "urban myth." There are NO "examiners-out-to-get-you". The only thing that will "get you" is your lack of preparation.

Every candidate should read the material sent by Capitol Hill Testing Service. This will tell you exactly what to bring to the exam, what to expect, and what skills will be tested. I am constantly amazed by the number of candidates who arrive at the exam without any kind of tool, instrument, or device, for measuring PDs. Come on - this is BASIC!
OK - I think everyone needs to get a grip re: the NYS exam.

----------


## hyperoptic

Whoa relax in every standardized exam (which to me thats what the boards are) you will find people who have said that it was fixed against them.  No one is doubting that you all work hard to produce a fair test, but sharon since who work so closely may I ask you why we were still required to work with hard contacts? or a vertometer? I know many opticians in the western New York region and they have never needed to use any of those skills, furthermore dont the recent changes in ANSI standard show that the human body has the ability to adapt to variations from what is found in an exam room and what is finally dispensed to a patient.  While I do fully agree that accurate filling of Rx's is important and being able to properly adjust eyeware is also paramount as a dispensing Optician I do not think that New York States Exam is a perfect test, also I have met people who were liscensed before I was and my skills as a dispensing Optician were far greater than theres (by there own admission) so I dont believe that just because someone can pass your test means that they are a good Optician.  When I Challenged my results I used Science, Logic, and Law and apparently some of your fellow Board members decided that I had proven my case well enough to grant me my License.

----------


## hcjilson

> When I Challenged my results I used Science, Logic, and Law and apparently some of your fellow Board members decided that I had proven my case well enough to grant me my License.


Either that or they realized they did not have a legally defensable exam. Bear in mind a practical examination is meant to test *ENTRY LEVEL SKILLS ONLY* not to see who is the best optician.

----------


## hyperoptic

has there been a law suit over this exam, I doubt it I sense that you feel you were wronged by NYS

----------


## jediron1

> Most of the answers on the practical are pretty cut and dry, as I remember. PD, best lens choice, best frame choice, neut lenses, seg ht. Where do you feel that your answers were correct and they scored you wrong? Remember, parts of the test had 2 examiners, if they scored opposite, or big differance then you might have a chance.


When I was an examiner for NY we also had them adjusting frames and that is where most people lost points. Most people could not tell the difference between retroscropic or pantoscopic tilt. The other thing we wanted to see was how proficient they were in handling the different tools 
mostly the angling of the endpieces and if they knew how too adjust the nose pieces so the frame could be moved in, out, up or down and how would they handle that. 

just my 2 cents  :Cool:

----------


## hcjilson

> has there been a law suit over this exam, I doubt it I sense that you feel you were wronged by NYS


I can't speak for NY but I understand the Arkansas practical exam has been challenged, and surprisingly upheld. I am not familiar with the circumstances or what was challenged.

----------


## tmorse

[quote=SharonB;227849]Again, the grading criteria are provided to the examiners, and they cannot, and do not, deviate from those citeria. /quote]

It seems that the Capital Hill group has an excellent practical exam and our National exam has similar protocols and safeguards. 

My question involves the grading criteria and just how strict is it?

Suppose a ESL (English as Second Language) opticianry candidate presents, what language assistance can they expect if they don't completely understand the question asked?

Would your examiners 'work-to-rule' and simply fold their arms and verbally repeat the question only. Should the exam candidate asks "do you mean this or that", do these examiners only repeat the question.

Or, if the question was asked how to remove a soft CL lens and an ESL candidate answered as part of her response...  you have the patient look up, then *pull* the lens down and pinch off. 
But if your grading criteria required the response...  *slide* the lens down and pinch off. Would this candidate be graded as incorrect? :Confused:

----------


## hcjilson

> I am *so* disturbed to hear all these bad things about the New York State Pratical Examination. The NYS Board for Ophthalmic Dispensing, and Capitol Hill Testing Services (the contract holder for the outsourced exam) have worked very carefully to produce an examination that is objective, based on a task analysis, (in which over 700 licensed opticians in New York participated in, and undergoes constant revision), and is legally difensable in court. The examination tests practical skills that are not tested in the NOCE (ABO) examination, thus reducing testing redundancy. 
> The NOCE exam is the written portion of the NYS licensing process. 
> The practical exam tests the ability to actually perform the skills identified as "critical", or "frequently performed", in the task analysis, and the grading criteria are pre-set for the examiners.The examiners have no opinions. You can part your hair any way you want. Or, have no hair at all! It dosen't matter. 
> The candidates are asked to fill out a laboratory order form in such a way as to produce eyeglasses that are COLTS and ANSI acceptable. They are also asked to do certain fitting and adjusting tasks, and to solve fitting complications. 
> Again, the grading criteria are provided to the examiners, and they cannot, and do not, deviate from those criteria. 
> Candidates are provided with frame measurements, PAL cut-out charts, patient profiles that detail patient concerns, PAL identifiers, and other aids. They are asked to neutralize either tri-focals, or PALs. Their responses must be within ANSI tolerances. 
> They are asked to take monocular measurements (for PDs and seg. hgt.) and fill out the order form in such a way as to be able to produce a pair of ANSI or COLTS compliant glasses.
> Is this so hard? 
> 
> ...


Sharon, 
Preface this with my high regard for anyone participating in the evaluation process of any optical examination. They do the best they can, given the tools they have. I mean no disrespect to their integrity when I say there is no way they can PROVE there was no bias present in grading the answer to a subjective question.

You stated,incorrectly, that examiners have no opinion. Of course they have opinions! That is what is what their grade is based upon. Any subjective exam question requires the opinion of the examiner, and there is no way the grade can be proved.

An objective question covering the same subject manner will provide multiple choices for answers, with only ONE correct answer.This requires no opinion, it is either right or wrong, and you don't need anyone from the profession to grade the test.An objective exam is much fairer, and legally defensible. Regardless of what appears in your post above. a subjective examination  may not be legally defensible.

PS I too have been invoved in the testing process since 1977.

----------


## SharonB

I am so surprised at so many replies to what was actually an old thread. To answer one complaint - The NYS Practical, as of the October 2007 administration, no longer requires the candidates to neutralize RGP lenses. To that respondent, I might add that the vertometer (also known as lensometer, or focimeter) will always be on that exam. If you meant distometer, well *that* will also remain on the exam, unless the next task analysis changes the frequent/critical skills sets.

All contact lens skill-sets have been moved into the Contact Lens Practical (where in my opinion, they belonged). The RGP neutralization inclusion in the exam was based on an interpretation of the law by the Ophthalmic Dispensing Board that stated that ophthalmic dispensers could duplicate the patient's current Rx through neutralization (but did not specify eyeglass or CL). I guess the State thought that if CLs were included in the basic dispensing license, then they better examine for CL neutralization also. Happy to report, that's no longer the case,the legal opinion was changed, and the Basic Practical has no CL stuff on it.

To answer Mr. Jilson's concerns: NYS examiners do not actually grade the exam. It is done electronically. If an exam paper cannot be read, it is hand graded by a psychometric group from SUNY Albany. They are not opticians. They simply have access to the exam key. Hand grading might be necessary, for example, if multiple erasures made the laboratory order form unreadable electronically. The examiners do not know the point value of any of the questions. Questions regarding transposition, decentrations, base curves, etc. are either right or wrong. There is no subjective opinion. The primary function of the examiners is to act as "readers", asking the candidates to perform the tasks in a specific order (although they are not penalized if they go out of order), and to be "patients" for taking PDs etc. It is a far cry from the exam I took 35 years ago, and while it may not be perfect (what is?), it's the best exam NY has had in years.
Just an additional note: NYS requires that a practical exam tests those  skills demonstrations not tested in a written, and it cannot be a written examination. If that were the case, we would only have the NOCE exam as part of our licensing process. While that thought might make a lot of candidates happy, it doesn't conform to current state law.
I am aware that every licensed state has a slightly different examination process - we all get to the same place in the end.

----------


## hyperoptic

I did mean distometer sorry I mis typed I knew it wasnt vertometer (lensometer) my bad :hammer:

----------


## tmorse

[quote=tmorse;227978]


> Again, the grading criteria are provided to the examiners, and they cannot, and do not, deviate from those citeria. /quote]
> 
> My question involves the grading criteria and just how strict is it?
> 
> Suppose a ESL (English as Second Language) opticianry candidate presents, what language assistance can they expect if they don't completely understand the question asked?
> 
> Would your examiners 'work-to-rule' and simply fold their arms and verbally repeat the question only. Should the exam candidate asks "do you mean this or that", do these examiners only repeat the question.
> 
> Or, if the question was asked how to remove a soft CL lens and an ESL candidate answered as part of her response... you have the patient look up, then *pull* the lens down and pinch off. 
> But if your grading criteria required the response... *slide* the lens down and pinch off. Would this candidate be graded as incorrect?


*And the response is??*

----------


## SharonB

Examiners can (and do) repeat the questions, which are actually requests to perform certain tasks. Ex: "Please take the monocular pupillary measurements necessary for your eyeglass order." (not exactly verbatim, but close enough). The language used is pretty basic, and there are no obscure terms used in the task requests. Examiners are asked not to deviate. That's a psychometric validity issue - all candidates should be taking the same examination, the same tasks, the same language. Candidates are given a written copy of the tasks that they can refer back to during the exam.

We haven't had any problematic issues with ESL candidates, although there are many of them taking the exam, especially from the metro NYC area. That is an interesting point, however. I don't know how the NYS Ed. Dept. would handle a candidate's request for a translator. It just hasn't come up.

We do routinely handle ADA issues, and provide additional time, lighting, and other requests for physical accommodation. That is, I believe, Federal law.

Entry preparation for the licensing exam is either 2 years of COA accredited schooling (Associates Degree), or a 2 year apprenticeship and completion of the NAO's CPP program, as well as successful completion of the ABO/NOCE exam. It would be difficult to attend school without a good knowledge of spoken and written English. The opticianry schools in NY all teach, and examine, in English.

The NOCE exam may be now available in Spanish (I'm not sure), but I'm pretty sure it's not available in Russian, Mandarin, Urdu, Cantonese, or Hindi. Those are probably the "at home" languages for most of the ESL candidates in NY. Again, they have to complete that exam first, and it would be hard to do without a working knowledge of English.

Your question about non-English speakers reminds me of a funny experience from back in the 1980s. NY had an opticianry school very close to the Akwesasne (Mohawk) reservation near the Canadian border. A candidate came through the exam with an old B&L PD gauge (two long tubes linked together), but she was using it one eye at a time. That didn't make any sense unless she was monocular. We asked her if she was monocular. She hesitated a bit, and then said "No, but I do live on the reservation."
:)

----------


## SharonB

To answer your question about the candidates language re; pulling or sliding a CL - that task (on the CL Practical) is graded on the safe and successful completion of the lens removal. Slide, pull, yank...no difference as long as the lens can be removed safely for the patient.

----------


## jediron1

> Just an additional note: NYS requires that a practical exam tests those skills demonstrations not tested in a written, and it cannot be a written examination. If that were the case, we would only have the NOCE exam as part of our licensing process. While that thought might make a lot of candidates happy, it doesn't conform to current state law.
> I am aware that every licensed state has a slightly different examination process - we all get to the same place in the end.


As mentioned before I did sit as an examiner for New York and your right we did not try to make it difficult we just wanted to see if they were proficient in some of there perfunctory duties. Another words we wanted to see if they could handle basic optical knowledge with understanding while using that knowledge how would they fix the problem we put before them. Like adjusting a pair of rimless glasses with out breaking them.
just my 2 cents  :Cool:

----------


## Barry Santini

> Like adjusting a pair of rimless glasses with out breaking them.


Like *I* could even do this...???!!

Barry

----------


## HarryChiling

> Like adjusting a pair of rimless glasses with out breaking them.


I forget which book I read it in, but it said that when living in NY state it is a requirement tht all rimless adjustments, especially the really angled ones were to be sent to Barry's shop.:D

----------


## obxeyeguy

> I forget which book I read it in, but it said that when living in NY state it is a requirement tht all rimless adjustments, especially the really angled ones were to be sent to Barry's shop.:D


It was one of Darryl's. :Rolleyes:

----------


## jediron1

> Like *I* could even do this...???!!
> 
> Barry


When I started in 1973 we were seeing a lot of Ronwin shursets and plain old Ronwins even had a Penz-Nez. Had to watch the adjustment on these
because at that time all were done in glass and quite thin.  :Cool:

----------


## hcjilson

Ah! the thrill.....the concentration.......and the tension mounting as the customer watched........I don't miss that at all!

----------


## jediron1

> Like *I* could even do this...???!!
> 
> Barry


 
I didn't know this was such a big deal! We just went out an did it. Maybe 1 in a 100 broke but working with glass and being very thin 1 in a 100 wasn't bad! We had fun until they broke and the owner was all over us for breaking them, aw the good old days!  :Cool:

----------

