ABO Advanced

[marquette42]

I just finished taking the Advanced NOCE. I have heard this is supposed to be a very difficult test with an insanly low pass/fail rate. Does anyone have any statistics on how many people take it yearly and what the pass/fail rate is? I am fairly confident I passed, but as I have heard so many horror stories I am in wait and see mode. I was the only person who took it at my testing site and with only 3 other testing sites I am hoping this will speed up my results so I don't have to wait the customary 6-8 weeks.

[kcount]

Just curious did you find the test difficult? I'm sitting for it in November.

[wmcdonald]

You should be just fine. It is a good measure of your knowledge, and you are one who really keeps up

[marquette42]

It did not seem nearly as hard as I was expecting (with the qualifier again I have not received my score). I was expecting something far different than what it ended up being. After receiving a 96 on my ABO last year I was expecting this test to be a killer.

It was 150 questions, I expected 100...

The business questions were not as numerous as I have seen posted and did not come accross as just thrown in as also has been implied...

It was lighter on equations than I expected...

It was also light on adjustments, which I was glad for, as I think that is something that is covered well enough in ABO...

The study guide that was put out in 2008 by the NAO is a good guide for the test, however I would say there are far to many errors in the book for it to be your only resource. Equations that are incorrect, a few factual errors and a multitude of spelling errors. If you other sources of study material I would say its an excellent source as an outline of what you need to know.

Many questions about regulations, though all of the questions were answered in the study guide...

[Diane]

The study guide that was put out in 2008 by the NAO is a good guide for the test, however I would say there are far to many errors in the book for it to be your only resource. Equations that are incorrect, a few factual errors and a multitude of spelling errors. If you other sources of study material I would say its an excellent source as an outline of what you need to know.

Many questions about regulations, though all of the questions were answered in the study guide...

If you've found errors in the book, please let the NAO know. I don't believe that there are any errors in the equations, as they were reviewed first by Michael DiSanto and then by a number of NFOS program directors. I could be wrong, however.

Diane

[marquette42]

The errors I found where subtle but they were in order of operations notation... a simple example would be:

a+b/c was written as (a+b)/c these are not the same though were often written as such. this can be shown by flushing them out with substitution.

a=1
b=2
c=3

a+b/c=1+2/3=1.6666667
(a+b)/c=(1+2)/3=3/3=1

This type of notation error can easily occur when trying to type an equation out in a word processing program. Newer versions of Word have a notation add-on (free) which allows for mathematical notation and formula creation which allows for equations to be entered in a format that is easier to read and easier to see errors with orders of operations.

If I were to go through and edit the book would I be listed as a contributor on the next edition? lol

BTW the same order of operations error was made in atleast 1 of the equations in the back of the test booklet.

[Diane]

The errors I found where subtle but they were in order of operations notation... a simple example would be:

a+b/c was written as (a+b)/c these are not the same though were often written as such. this can be shown by flushing them out with substitution.

a=1
b=2
c=3

a+b/c=1+2/3=1.6666667
(a+b)/c=(1+2)/3=3/3=1

This type of notation error can easily occur when trying to type an equation out in a word processing program. Newer versions of Word have a notation add-on (free) which allows for mathematical notation and formula creation which allows for equations to be entered in a format that is easier to read and easier to see errors with orders of operations.

If I were to go through and edit the book would I be listed as a contributor on the next edition? lol

BTW the same order of operations error was made in atleast 1 of the equations in the back of the test booklet.

What equations are you referring to?

Diane

[Wes]

Hmm. I feel hoodwinked. My test booklet had no such equations in the back.

[marquette42]

I do not have the study guide with me at this time, but I can think of a specific example.

The equation for Martin's tilt formula is correctly notated in the study guide, however when you look at the example it is incorrectly written.

In the example the portion that is incorrect is written as (1+ (sin(a))^2)/3 when it should read 1 + (sin(a))^2/3.

These may look he same but they are not. Substitute 2 for sin(a)

(1+ (sin(a))^2)/3
=(1+ (2)^2)/3
=(1+4)/3
=5/3

1 + (sin(a))^2/3
=1 + (2)^2/3.
=1+4/3
=2 1/3

and this was the same error that was in the equations in the back of the test booklet. Bc of the error in the study material I knew to look for it on the test.

My comment is not to disparage the authors of the guide, but to point out that you will need more than that to be able to a) learn the material to be a more rounded optician and b) pass the test.

[Diane]

Equation in back of book

15. Martin’s Tilt Formula

The formula is:
New Sphere power = D (1+sin2a)
3

Induced Cylinder power = D (tan2a)

Where:
D = the dioptric power of the meridian of tilt
a = the angle of excessive tilt


In text

Martin’s Tilt Formula

The formula is:
New Sphere power = D (1+sin2a)
3
Induced Cylinder power = D (tan2a)

Where:
D = the dioptric power of the meridian of tilt
a = the angle of excessive tilt


The 3 won't position correctly in this post, however in the book it is placed correctly under sin2a In addition, the 2 won't superscript in the post.

Same equation...don't understand where you got your information.

Diane

[marquette42]

I am getting just a bit tired of responding to this post already as it has turned into seemingly every other post in this site. Diane please re read my last post where I explained where I described the error. I will restate it here 1 more time for you as either I did not explain myself well or you are just so angry that you were unable to read my previous post.

The error I mentioned in martin's tilt formula in the study guide was not in how the eqaution was noted but how the EXAMPLE was written. here is how the example was written:
-10 x (1+sin^210)/3

that is INCORRECT... Just as you noted it should be 1 + the fraction of (sin^2 10)/3.

The other error was in the back of the ABO TEST. Not the back of the study guide.

I assume your anger stems from you being Diane Drake author, contributor, compiler and editorer. Diane, please not that I said your guide was an excellent resource and it was a main factor in my feeling confident that I passed the exam. However, as is often the case with even text books on their 14th edition there were errors.

Go to page 234 question 55 always made me chuckle. Is the answer, C, C, C, or hmmm C... lol the first time i took it I actually put down C when in fact it should have been B but I got a good chuckle at myself after doing that. Most of the errors were slight, but all of them make it just a bit harder for a person to feel confident.

[Robert Martellaro]

Equation in back of book

15. Martin’s Tilt Formula

The formula is:
New Sphere power = D (1+sin2a)
3

The "3" is just an approximation if the material is cr39. It should probably look like this.

D₁= D[1 + (sin² a) / (2n)]

D₁ = new spherical power
D = original sphere power
a = degrees of tilt
n = index of refraction

Tilting the lens vertically increases the power, induces cylinder with a 180 axis, with the sign equal to the original sphere.

[Diane]

[QUOTE=marquette42;345489]I am getting just a bit tired of responding to this post already as it has turned into seemingly every other post in this site. Diane please re read my last post where I explained where I described the error. I will restate it here 1 more time for you as either I did not explain myself well or you are just so angry that you were unable to read my previous post....

I assume your anger stems from you being Diane Drake author, contributor, compiler and editorer. Diane, please not that I said your guide was an excellent resource and it was a main factor in my feeling confident that I passed the exam. However, as is often the case with even text books on their 14th edition there were errors.

QUOTE]

Last post on this topic. First of all, you don't know me at all. I don't appreciate your inference on how I feel, because you don't know. I am not angry and that is not the reason for my response. Your other comment was that perhaps you didn't explain yourself well....LOL. I don't usually get involved with things and don't like to have controversy. However, I do like errors to be corrected, thus my response to you. My first post to you was to get you to give the example of the error. You have finally made a complete comment rather than simply generalizing to what you identify as an error. I will look it over, even though I didn't write that part, Mike DiSanto did. I'll also have the other authors and contributors check it out. You are correct when you state that even though a book is edited, corrected, edited and corrected again, there can always be errors.

Interestingly enough, my copy of page 234 question 55 is typed correctly. However, I understand that sometimes when e-mailing a Word document things have a tendency to change, as I was constantly having to reformat A B C D when sending it to the final editor. I'll check that one out as well.

Also interestingly enough, I'd love to meet you. I think you are probably as much of a perfectionist as I am. :)

Thanks,
Diane

[Diane]

[QUOTE=marquette42;345489]
The error I mentioned in martin's tilt formula in the study guide was not in how the eqaution was noted but how the EXAMPLE was written. here is how the example was written:
-10 x (1+sin^210)/3

that is INCORRECT... Just as you noted it should be 1 + the fraction of (sin^2 10)/3.
QUOTE]

OK, I said that my last post was my last post on this thread, but I lied. I just looked over the example in the book, and you are absolutely correct. It shows the underline under the 1+ as well as the sinsquared10. Man I wish I could superscript that 2. I'll see that it is corrected. Me culpa. :)

Diane

[Robert Martellaro]

Man I wish I could superscript that 2.

Diane

(sup)exponent(/sup) Replace the parenthesis () with brackets [].

[tigerlilly]

It was also light on adjustments, which I was glad for, as I think that is something that is covered well enough in ABO...

I took the ABO a few days ago, and there were all of two adjustment questions. There was one more on measuring for a PAL, and that was virtually it for dispensing. The lab folks who took it with me were thrilled. Me, not so much.

Anyway, my point is that I think the advanced test should cover dispensing. It should cover everything, or the advanced designation isn't truly deserved. Apparently the ABO with its different versions is badly split up into areas of knowledge instead of being a well-rounded exam, so a true test of mastery should be comprehensive.

[gmc]

tigerlilly, what types of questions were on the test? Almost every time it is given, I am prepping someone to take it and I like to make sure I am keeping up to date. I had two people just take it and I have three people planning to take it in November.

I agree with you that each test seems to emphasize a particular area. I took the test for the second time a year ago and there were multiple questions that were variations on the nominal lens equation. I think there were only a couple of questions on ocular anatomy.

[Uilleann]

...Anyway, my point is that I think the advanced test should cover dispensing. It should cover everything, or the advanced designation isn't truly deserved. Apparently the ABO with its different versions is badly split up into areas of knowledge instead of being a well-rounded exam, so a true test of mastery should be comprehensive.

A true test of mastery shouldn't be motivated strictly by how much money it can fleece it's "certified" and aspiring masses for. But I get, and agree with, what you're sayin too! ;)

Bri~

[tigerlilly]

Gmc, it was an odd test. There were four or five questions about a double D lens, a couple of which were right in succession. There was a question that gave A,B and PD and asked what minimum size a lens would have to be to cut out. There were a few questions giving front base curve of a lens and asking what the back curve was. There was basically no dispensing at all, and literally one anatomy question. One question on waves. A handful of prism, a couple of focal length questions, and a left field question about figuring PD by measuring the segs on a FT lens. It was all kind of esoteric stuff rather than what I'd seen in the study guides and practice tests. Not much of it was stuff used in the day to day life of a dispenser, so it required specific experience or study in those areas. I was scoring in the mid-90s on the practice tests, and I don't think I passed the real test. I actually went back and counted the questions where I was unsure of my answer or just plain guessed, and it was about 35 questions, despite weeks of diligent revision and preparation.

The NCLE was the same, btw. Virtually nothing about hard or RGP lenses, K readings or any of that complicated stuff. It was all soft lenses, follow up care and that kind of thing. Not a single anatomy question! Naturally I'd been pouring over the hard stuff and probably flubbed the easy test 'cause I was unprepared for it to focus on other things.

Bri, I think there's a division between career opticians and people who do it as a job. I ended up sitting with some retail lab people after the exam, rehashing it, and almost all of them were taking it for the second time. They thought it was hard, even though they were rejoicing over the lack of dispensing questions. The test isn't much of a challenge for the true pros, but it does raise the bar some for the folks on the retail end of things who don't get a good education from their employers. I can't disagree that it's about money, though. At $150 a pop, with 29 ABO test takers in my city in an unlicensed state, I can only imagine how much they make off these programs.

[marquette42]

NO worries Diane, glad you found what I was talkin about... If you need help formatting the formulae for future edition let me know and I can easily sit down in Word and use the formula feature and create the pages for you. I am pretty well practiced at using the feature bc I always made study guides for my classmates at Marquette for our business classes.

As to something someone else posted, my belief is that dispensing is kind of like algebra for opticians. It is important but is also a basic part of what we do that everyone should know. Because of this I think it should be covered more heavily in ABO not ABOC-AC. You wouldn't get a question about algebra on a Calculus test, though the Calc question may involve algebra. I hope that analogy made sense.

I think some of the more advanced optical questions are what should be covered. Martin's tilt, Sagitta, critical angle, Snell's law, Isokonics, Circle of least confusion these are what I consider more "advanced" optics. I consider adjustments, focal length, prism calc, Prentice Rule all to be "basic" optics and thus covered in the ABO though I think having to prove your knowledge of the basic by incorporating it into an advanced theory now THAT would be an excellent test (and I am glad I didn't take that one lol ;)).

[gmc]

Thanks for the info tigerlilly. It'll be helpful in preparing my future candidates.

Diane, do you know when the new book you referenced in another thread will be available?

[Diane]

Diane, do you know when the new book you referenced in another thread will be available?

Check with the NAO. 800-229-4828.

Diane

[canaanlilli]

On the standard ABO test the important thing to remember is that there are at least 3 different versions given at each sitting. Of the four people I sent to get their ABO last November 3 of them had different test. 1 of the test was lab heavy, 1 was adjustment heavy and 1 was theory heavy. All four passed with an 80 by the way!

THEY ALL HAD QUESTION's on Prentice Rule, Basic optical measurements, and panto/retro tilt adjustments.

Basically, you can't be guarunteed what they will face...except those three things.

[marquette42]

Got my results in the mail today...

I guess I get to add some letters... ABOC-AC for me now.

[gmc]

Congratulations marquette42! That's quite an accomplishment.