Disappointed in ABO Exam

**GOS_Queen** · 05-16-2005, 11:53 AM

Don't know if I mentioned this, but I had to take the ABO exam yesterday for recertification (I got 1/2 my credits in ... worked on the other 1/2 late in the year and they NEVER ARRIVED !!! :angry: but that is another story).

This was the third ABO exam I have taken in 12 years (procrastination ... it can be an ugly thing ... ;) ).

I was shocked at how "not difficult" the ABO exam was yesterday! There was not ONE question on figuring out how much prism ... no configuring vertex changes (just a couple of questions about if a minus lens sits closer to the eye, what does that do to the power and the other question was about if a plus lens sits farther from the eye what does that do to the power). Very few questions on whether a job "meets standards" when checking out an order. :drop:

There was not ONE question about Trivex, which quite frankly, shocked me. Nothing really on duty to warn/inform. Nothing about the theories of light. :(

How can we as a profession take it seriously if our national standards exam doesn't. :hammer:

Karen

(feeling a bit jaded today)

**Chris Ryser** · 05-16-2005, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by GOS_Queen

.
I was shocked at how "not difficult" the ABO exam was yesterday! There was not ONE question on figuring out how much prism ... no configuring vertex changes (just a couple of questions about if a minus lens sits closer to the eye, what does that do to the power and the other question was about if a plus lens sits farther from the eye what does that do to the power). Very few questions on whether a job "meets standards" when checking out an order.
Karen

Wondering how much business politics is involved in examining present and future professional prescription dispensers.

Is it to make it easy for present and future chain store employees to have an optical degree?

Guess times have changed...........maybe we should just buy a diploma on the internet universities who promise to give it you withing 2 weeks.

**35oldguy** · 05-16-2005, 12:55 PM

Maybe the ABO test has lost it creditability. I took the test in 1976 and passed.

What is the cost of a re-exam? I do not understand why you have to retake it. Once should be enough! It was not easy like today when I took it. What is the point?

Originally Posted by Chris Ryser

Wondering how much business politics is involved in examining present and future professional prescription dispensers.

Is it to make it easy for present and future chain store employees to have an optical degree?

Guess times have changed...........maybe we should just buy a diploma on the internet universities who promise to give it you withing 2 weeks.

**wmcdonald** · 05-16-2005, 02:47 PM

You do not have to take it. It is voluntary certification. If you complete it once, you only need to send in the required CE to renew it. Many states do use it as a part of their licensing requirements, but as a stand alone exam, it is strictly voluntary. It is unfortunate, but it is merely an entry-level test. I try to keep in mind what it was designed for, but we have now begun to use it as a "standard of achievement" beyond its capabilities.

**Rodusa** · 05-16-2005, 02:52 PM

Don't make a big deal out of it, who cares??

**wmcdonald** · 05-16-2005, 03:44 PM

I do, or I would not have responded.

**Jason Carruthers** · 05-16-2005, 03:51 PM

It sounds to me like it's not meant as a guarantee of complete standards. If the ABO is more of an "association" as opposed to a regulating body, then that would explain it.

**wmcdonald** · 05-16-2005, 03:53 PM

It is not an association. It is a credentialing body that provides voluntary certification for Opticians.

**Jason Carruthers** · 05-16-2005, 04:10 PM

mcdonald: "It is a credentialing body"

When you say "credentialing body", you mean the designation of ABO certified. The important question is, does the ABO have a financial interest in having more people pay for, write, and pass the ABO exam?

Furthermore, is the ABO also a "regulating body"? If it is, then its first obligation will be to protect the public, not to profit from the sale of credentials to opticians.

**wmcdonald** · 05-16-2005, 04:26 PM

It has one and only one function. It certifies Opticians in spectacle dispensing and/or contact lenses. It is not, and never has been, a regulating body; states do that. You do hit on a subject near and dear to my heart. The ABO sets its own standards and is making millions from certifying folks. the more the merrier!It is not controlled by the profession, but by its own board. Now, I know all of the individuals on that board and they are honorable people, but it would be difficult at best to place any kind of significant entry requirement to take the examination because it would slow down the income stream. It seems a bit disjointed. I would like to see a degree requirement or the completion of a serious apprenticeship prior to taking the exam, but I do not expect it to happen.

**Darryl Meister** · 05-16-2005, 07:15 PM

The ABO sets its own standards and is making millions from certifying folks

Since it's a not-for-profit organization, I wonder what they do with all of the money.

Best regards,
Darryl

**wmcdonald** · 05-16-2005, 07:33 PM

The funds go to various organizations in the form of grants, but the ABO/NCLE is a very well-heeled organization and keep a tight watch on funds as they should. I would rather see a bit stiffer examination process and a mandatory education and training requirement prior to taking the exam if it is to be used by states as a licensure requirement. Please do not read into this thread that I feel that the boards of ABO/NCLE do anything irregular with their revenue. I say again that they are all honorable people and do their best. They support groups like OAA, NAO, CLSA, COA and others to do what they do. I just feel that if the ABO is to be used for anything other than a minimum entry test, it needs to be strengthened.

Warren

**Pete Hanlin** · 05-16-2005, 08:07 PM

Furthermore, is the ABO also a "regulating body"? If it is, then its first obligation will be to protect the public, not to profit from the sale of credentials to opticians.
I have to agree with Warren here... By definition, only governmental agencies (or private organizations designated by governmental bodies) can regulate any activity. The ABO/NCLE merely provides a certification examination. If I'm not mistaken, I believe every licensed state utilizes the ABO certification as part of its own credential process.

As for disappointment in the level of difficulty associated with this examination, I would suggest sitting for the ABO-AC examination (I guarantee you'll find it a more rigorous exersize).

**rep** · 05-16-2005, 08:36 PM

Try thge NCLE-AC or the Refraction Exam. I promise you won't be disappointed.

The ABO/NCLE was never developed to be anything but an entry leval minimum knowledge necessary test. Granted States are using it as part of their licensing requirements but most also include practical examinations in addition to the ABO/NCLE. States have the right to use anything they want as their examination. Many states use the test because in the past there were some abuses by state boards deliberately restricting the entry into the profession.

The entry level exam would never use a licensed product that has a limited distribution like Trivix for a number of reasons, including the fact the the exam has been used at times outside the US.

Rep

**Darryl Meister** · 05-16-2005, 09:15 PM

The ABO/NCLE was never developed to be anything but an entry leval minimum knowledge necessary test

There is a big difference between being "competent" at something and having the "minimum knowledge necessary" to do it, though. The ABO has always described their exam as a competency exam; indeed, the official title of the exam is the National Opticianry Competency Examination. Even today, their website describes it as follows:

You can't buy it; you have to earn it. Certification is professional distinction — official and public recognition of your achievement that you have met a national set of standards as a qualified and competent optician or contact lens technician. Certification is official assurance to the public that you will handle their eye wear needs competently and carefully; certification is recognized by employers as a standard of competence.

Is the successful completion of the current exam truly indicative of a "qualified and competent" optician, as the ABO claims? Sure, the Advanced exam may provide more of a challenge to those who want it, but is the basic NOCE exam -- used by many states as part of their licensing requirements -- really doing doing its job?

In my opinion, the ABO -- which has been closely associated with the OAA -- is the one organization in this country that is actually in a position to advance opticianry education at this point. Are they doing this?

Best regards,
Darryl

**Jason Carruthers** · 05-16-2005, 10:40 PM

Higher standards won't help opticians or the public unless there is government regulation, and unless ophthalmic dispensing is considered a controlled medical act like filling a cavity in your tooth or replacing your hip.

**Darryl Meister** · 05-16-2005, 11:09 PM

Higher standards won't help opticians or the public unless there is government regulation

I don't know, many of the standards we live by today (both formal and informal) are not "regulated." Even one of the most important consumer protection tools is in our industry, the ANSI Z80.1 Standard, is a completely voluntary standard. For that matter, I don't know that a state government would regulate opticians unless they felt that enough opticians could already meet the minimum standard of the regulation.

Besides, I see little hope of advancing any meaningful regulatory legislation for opticians at this point -- at least in the foreseeable future. I think we've already let it slide too far. In an era of deregulation, convincing a legislative body to regulate a service that has gone uncontrolled in most states for years with little incident would be no small feat. Not to mention the fact that we would have a hard time coming up with a compelling point to opticianry regulation nowadays.

Best regards,
Darryl

**GOS_Queen** · 05-17-2005, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by Rodusa

Don't make a big deal out of it, who cares??

I care ... The first exam I took was TOUGH .. we had to answer all sorts of questions about light theories, and had to figure out vertex compensation, prism computation and whether the finished product met standards. :(

**GOS_Queen** · 05-17-2005, 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin

As for disappointment in the level of difficulty associated with this examination, I would suggest sitting for the ABO-AC examination (I guarantee you'll find it a more rigorous exersize).

I actually printed the information out today on the advanced exam.

**GOS_Queen** · 05-17-2005, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by rep

The entry level exam would never use a licensed product that has a limited distribution like Trivix for a number of reasons, including the fact the the exam has been used at times outside the US.

Rep

I'm confused - If it's the AMERICAN Board of Opticianry, shouldn't the subject matter be focused on what happens in AMERICA and not what happens outside the US??

I work for LC. I don't have access to Trivex but I have patients coming in asking about the material because (Binyon's)Eyemasters has it ... also Dr's offices are touting it due to the optical quality. I think it will become more of a relevant lens option (I'm getting it as soon as I can personally).

**GOS_Queen** · 05-17-2005, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by Darryl Meister

Besides, I see little hope of advancing any meaningful regulatory legislation for opticians at this point -- at least in the foreseeable future. I think we've already let it slide too far. In an era of deregulation, convincing a legislative body to regulate a service that has gone uncontrolled in most states for years with little incident would be no small feat. Not to mention the fact that we would have a hard time coming up with a compelling point to opticianry regulation nowadays.

Best regards,
Darryl

Darryl - I totally agree with this statement.

Sadly,

Karen

**GOS_Queen** · 05-17-2005, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by Darryl Meister

There is a big difference between being "competent" at something and having the "minimum knowledge necessary" to do it, though.

Is the successful completion of the current exam truly indicative of a "qualified and competent" optician, as the ABO claims? Sure, the Advanced exam may provide more of a challenge to those who want it, but is the basic NOCE exam -- used by many states as part of their licensing requirements -- really doing doing its job?

Best regards,
Darryl

From what I saw yesterday, I would have to say N O . The first exam was really a mind bender. The second time I took the exam (again, that darn procrastination ... LOL) it wasn't as bad as the first but I had to work at a few problems. This one felt like "fluff" in comparison.

Karen