Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 106

Thread: State Practical Exam

  1. #51
    Master OptiBoarder MVEYES's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Mt. Vernon Ohio
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    873

    Question Warren

    You said:
    I read this board almost daily and reply almost never because of some who use it as a "bully pulpit" to disparrage others with no real background to support their opinions. All have a right to those opinions, but in Opticianry particularly, there is little formal preparation required to enter the profession. I see people spout off on this board often about the national organizations and the poor job they are doing that have never been members or even been to a national meeting.
    I have posted many postings and a few threads about the viability of the National organizations. I have been to 5 national conventions in the the past 15 years. I am a member of OAA through the state since a portion of our dues are sent to OAA. I have asked for an accounting for the money that our Association has sent in the last 8 years that has led to a condition of almost dissolution at this point. As a state leader and Secretary/Treasure of our state association I have the right to question. You might critisize the free posting of concerns of Opticians on this forum but you need to as others look at these postings as a means to stimulating the interests of those who don't participate at any level in the advancement of Opticianry. I applaud organizations who have set standards in the past but I challenge those organizations to make changes now and in the future to move our profession forward. The status quo is not good enough!
    Opinions are important, but if you don't have a foundation for those opinions then they serve no value to anyone other than making you feel important. My point; make criticism in a constructive manner. We have serious problems here people and working together to solve them is the key to any future success, and believe me we will again have our day. There are many fully committed to that end. But we have a number of things that should be addressed.
    All opinions are constructive as long as they create dialogue and ideas to improve the point being discussed. If there is no foundation to the opinion being presented then enlighten us to the truth. Don't hide in the background and strike out at those questioning.

    You make strong valid points in the last part of your post that I applaud. It is to bad that scathing critism has to be a part of any post. As an educator: educate! Many in this online discussion group need your input. Do it often to bring out the truth.



    :cheers: Jerry
    The mighty oak tree was once a little nut that held its ground

  2. #52
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Fayetteville, NC, USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,009

    wmcdonald

    As usual someone doesn't fully read prior to lengthy comments. I discussed exactly your points- ie: everyone has an opinion and I supported that. Too often however, as in your comments, they are misunderstood. That is the falacy of posting here. I did not address your personal attendance at any meeting, I merely stated a widely recognized fact that people who do not belong should not comment. They have no dog in the fight. So you will understand, I meant that as a form of chiding and at the same time encouragement to get involved. I am pleased you did attend personally and that you belong. Bravo! I am thrilled that you are a big shot in your state, but what does that have to do with my post? You are not representative of the entire population, or even a small microcausm of it. Even in voting for elective office, people complain about government, but did they vote? That is not the point, and as usual on this board I have to defend what I considered very constructive comments. If they did not apply to you why did you feel required to comment at all. While it is your right, again it was not constructive, merely additional input that was meaningless to anyone other than you. I provide education all over this country, often for no fee, and I assure you I do not hide, period. But I will not waste any more time on this issue. I have made specific points that if anyone would like to address in an intelligent manner I will be pleased to respond to them.

  3. #53
    Master OptiBoarder MVEYES's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Mt. Vernon Ohio
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    873

    Question When you address all who post

    Maybe you should consider the statements you make are general and attack all who are posting on a subject as you said:
    Opinions are important, but if you don't have a foundation for those opinions then they serve no value to anyone other than making you feel important.
    Do you have some problem with individual Opticians who work hard at making their profession better by joining and moving up to a position on their state board? I am proud that I am willing to give my time for this profession as you are to put a Phd behind your name. If you come down off your tower you would be a great asset to the group of Opticians who are interested in moving this profession to a higher level.
    I have been one individual who has questioned the strengths of all the National organizations and have drawn out those who know information to post. I might not lecture all over the country but I can assure you that I have strong feelings about what I say.
    Apparently my comments weren't meaningless or you would not have responded.

    We sometimes clarify our statements with justifying titles or positions. If you don't like that don't do it yourself.

    :angry:

    Gerald Sherman (you can click on my profile to see my justifying title)
    The mighty oak tree was once a little nut that held its ground

  4. #54
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Fayetteville, NC, USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,009

    wmcdonald

    That has nothing to do with my comments then or now. I am pleased to see your activity. No one has publically and privately questioned the national leadership more than I, and I feel it is important for us all to continue to question. But I do take offense at comments made when unjustified. I stand by my comments from both posts, and insist that my initial post had nothing to do with people who do help. That is the point. I applaud your efforts and encourage you to continue whether or not you agree with me. All have a right to an opinion, but it is the masses I address with my comments that do nothing other than complain, and people who comment when unnecessay. We have definite needs to address. I made specific recommendations that you don't even concern yourself with. You want to address personal issues that had nothing to do with the initial post at all. Maybe we are both saying the same thing if you really get down to it. We all need to work to the betterment of the profession. I have given my time freely for 30 years and will continue. I encourage you to continue your efforts, and together, if we all do just a little bit, we'll get this crowd moving in the right direction again. This whole thing has become tangled so terribly from the initial focus of the thread that we may have forgotten. Jon wants to develop a national practical exam. Lets get back to the issue.

  5. #55
    Master OptiBoarder Joann Raytar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,948

    Time Out

    I think there is a bit of miscommunication going on. I believe Mr. McDonald is supporting the common folks being able to offer opinions and criticizing those who try to quiet them with their own formalities. He is just saying folks shouldn't jump all over each other but discuss things rationally.

    I understand his position. Up until just recently, I found it very easy to criticize the OAA because there was a ton of information I felt I was missing about the organization. There have been a number of posts lately that have changed my attitudes concerning the OAA quite a bit. This wouldn't have happened without some great posts by OAA members. I still believe the OAA has a ton of work to do but that doesn't mean we should turn our backs on it and walk away.

    PS:
    Jerry,
    You know that we can all tell how much you wholeheartedly care about Opticianry! I believe Mr. McDonald does too. I guess that is what happens when you get a couple of very passionate folks together in one place. You are both valuable keepers of the profession!

    PS:
    Mr. McDonald,
    I saw a post recently that mentioned that an Optician in a state somewhere had the legal right to "look behind somebody's ears to check for temple adjustment". WOW! That must be rocket science if it takes a license to do!
    I am surprised that you misinterpreted that statement in its original context. It is a law that is intended to keep frame alignment in the optical shops and out of mall kiosks. No, it is not rocket science but if you allow non-registered vendors to make adjustments you run into the "give them and inch and they'll take a mile" issues.

  6. #56
    Master OptiBoarder MVEYES's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Mt. Vernon Ohio
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    873

    Thumbs up I post my apologies

    I want to tell all that I did jump to conclusions and will look at the posts more rigorously. I did take it personally since my focus on threads pertaining to National associations was to question their legitimacy under the current situation in controlling Opticianry. I for one beleive these organizations with strong leadership will create a better profession.

    Again, I bow to reason and apologize for rash statements I made.



    :shiner: Jerry
    The mighty oak tree was once a little nut that held its ground

  7. #57
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Charlottesville, Va. 22902
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    45
    Harry, I promise that I will stop coming down so hard on Mass. I have been pushing you for one reason, I want you to stop saying Jon should do this or that, or that the NCSORB should be doing something. What I have been hoping is that you would ask, Jon how can I help? Who can I call? We are all busy and over worked, Va. pays me a $50 dollar per deim for public meetings plus mileage so I guess I am better off then you, but I am not getting rich being a public servant. I am not sure you know that 2 or 3 years ago I asked Donna Dickerman Board Administar for RI. to contact you and keep your state up to date. She also stays in touch with Vt. NH. and Conn. . I also asked Kitty Cox Board Administar for SC. to keep in touch with NC., Ga.,and Fla.. I call NY., NJ., OH., TN., KY. and ALaska, . We then each take turns with Calf., Nev., Hawaii, etc.. I know first hand that 4 years is a long time to complete this task, but I believe it would be easier and probably more enjoyable to herd a 1000 cats across Nebraska.

    Let me explain why I believe we should do a job and task analysis. When I started overseeing the Va. practical exam we had candidates lay out a lens to be surfaced using a protractor. The Board Chairman at that time (71 years old) fought me tooth and nail that everyone should know how to do that. Was it appropiate to examine people on that task? Now 6 years later I am confronted with the question of manual lensometers versues auto lensometers. We provide marco lensometers for our exam and tell candidates that they may bring their own equipment if they desire. Well what if someone brought an auto lensometer to the exam. The question would be should we allow them to use that piece of equipment to neutralize lenses? The discussion at our Board meeting included comments like " no it is not standard equipment in most shops" well is it or isn't it. Everyone knew at least one Dr's office that uses them, then we determined that a lot of chain stores may use them etc. Equipment changes, products change everything evolves and the fact that we are all busy living our lives I am not sure how we can say definatively what tasks need to be tested on an exam.I believe that we would have a better exam and profession if we routinely surveyed the regulants. You commented that the NY exam was to subjective, and I would agree, but I believe it could easily be modified. My question is how objective were you in determining that Roy's exam met your states needs? I am sorry that I am stubborn about wanting to do it right, but we have been testing people in Va. since 1952 so I am not worried about a little more time to get it right.
    Last edited by Jon Bright; 03-09-2002 at 05:33 PM.

  8. #58
    Master OptiBoarder Joann Raytar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,948

    Re: I post my apologies

    MVEYES said:
    I did take it personally since my focus on threads pertaining to National associations was to question their legitimacy under the current situation in controlling Opticianry. I for one beleive these organizations with strong leadership will create a better profession.
    Jerry, so you misread a post; that happens. However, don't apologize for your questions about the organization and strengthening of Opticianry. Your questions, among others, are what got some quality dialogue going!

    Actually, you are the one who said "Ohio only has a written exam for licensure. I sure would like to see a practical nation wide." I believe that was the post that helped open this thread up. Look at some of the names posting here; where else could all of us be having this conversation? Only on OptiBoard could the average Optical Joe in Anytown, USA have one on one's with Roy R. Ferguson, Jon Bright, Warren McDonald and other professional leaders all at the same time. Ain't it beautiful!

  9. #59
    Cape Codger OptiBoard Gold Supporter hcjilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cape Cod, Hyannis, MA. USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    7,437

    A couple of things before I start......

    A couple of things before I start.......

    You may be interested in learning that Donna D is an Optiboarder as well.While not keeping in close touch over the past 8 months, I have been in touch with her as recently as couple of weeks ago to alert her to this thread.

    Your point on the auto lensometer is well taken but I remind you that if the rule states you may bring your own equipment, then I suppose anyone who can acess an auto lensometer would be within the rules to use it.After all....they'd have to know HOW to use it....and they'd have to know How to find the centerMRP on a progressive lens, as well as how to find the add power.I wonder how many would trust an auto lensometer with their future.My Point here is if the rule is wrong (ie. what equipment can be used) all you have to do is change the rule.

    Jon what is wrong with the scenario that says adopt a practical exam that the committee agrees is comrehensive enough to test one's practical knowledge.This is adopted as the "National" practical ( with no state yet approving, just the adoption of it)Leave it to the states to decide what they need in order to approve the exam.If they need a job and task analysis, let THEM do one, and anything else they require.

    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts saw the need for a practical exam which was totally objective.We adopted an examination which was objective as well as comprehensive.In June you asked how I could PROVE it was comprehensive and pointed out rightfully so, that I could not.I see the value of a job and task analysis....but not the NEED..... at least for the present.What I am suggesting is to adopt the exam and refine it as needed.

    I am sure that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would adopt a National Exam if it were available.Our thrust has always been toward commonality, its in everyones best interest.It would also let us move on in the other areas discussed in this forum.(formal education....etc)


    From a stormy Cape Cod where it reached 60 yesterday for the first time since October :D :D :D
    harry j
    "Always laugh when you can. It is a cheap medicine"
    Lord Byron

    Take a photo tour of Cape Cod and the Islands!
    www.capecodphotoalbum.com

  10. #60
    Master OptiBoarder Joann Raytar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,948
    Your point on the auto lensometer is well taken but I remind you that if the rule states you may bring your own equipment, then I suppose anyone who can acess an auto lensometer would be within the rules to use it.After all....they'd have to know HOW to use it....and they'd have to know How to find the centerMRP on a progressive lens, as well as how to find the add power.
    Harry, OK but ... forget about lensometers for a minute and think about other equipment. For many state exams you need to bring some form of manual layout equipment, a protractor or box-o-graph for example. If you tell folks they may bring their own equipment, what happens if someone shows up with one of those automated blockers. Push bifocal style enter PD's and box measurements and bingo a little picture pops up that tells you where to put the lens on the screen. I would think that this person definitely has an unfair advantage over someone using a protractor or even a standard layout blocker for that matter.

    I don't think something should be allowed unless you have data that says more than let's say 80% or so of the state's Opticianry population uses that equipment. The fun part is getting that data. If a state requires that Opticals file for Shop Licenses, perhaps it could be mandatory to have to take a little census.

  11. #61
    Master OptiBoarder MVEYES's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Mt. Vernon Ohio
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    873

    Thumbs up Friday

    I contacted a member of our licensing board about having a state practical exam instituted as part of our exam. I was told that according to Ohio law that the board could not create one but they could contract an existing national practical to use in the licensing process.
    I look forward to agreements by the members of N.C.S.O.R.B. in accepting one national practical. This could be one small step toward formal education.


    :cheers: Jerry
    The mighty oak tree was once a little nut that held its ground

  12. #62
    Cape Codger OptiBoard Gold Supporter hcjilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cape Cod, Hyannis, MA. USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    7,437

    Dear Pardner.....

    If you have a written question that, in order to answer, requires the knowledge of how to use a protractor And there are 5 possible answers to that, and only ONE of those is correct, then you have sucessfully tested one's ability to use a protractor.Concerning what you are allowed to bring into the exam is really up to the individual doing the testing.The case with Dr. Ferguson's exam and NY's as well, is that you are given a list of what to bring as well as the subject matter upon which you will be tested.

    I have not seen any reference to a blocker so I cannot comment specifically on that.Personally I would be less concerned with a licensed optician who couldn't block a lens than an optician who could not identify or neutralise a progressive lens.The fact with practical knowledge is: Either you know it or you don't.All too many people who have passed the ABO, don't have the practical skills necessary to operate an optical shop on their own.If I am going to hire a licensed optician, I would expect that they have the ability to operate on their own.Thats what the practical is all about.

    I don't mean to sound condescending above, but if you've ever had a new licensesee come to work with/for you, you are aware of what I speak.

    Fondly, from your pardinar in moderatorhood,
    hj
    PS to Jon,Jerry, Dr's Mcdonald, and Ferguson....et al..........Don't anyone ever expect a sign off like that from me.Is just that I have to walk carefully around Jo till she's had her second cuppa!
    :bbg: hj
    "Always laugh when you can. It is a cheap medicine"
    Lord Byron

    Take a photo tour of Cape Cod and the Islands!
    www.capecodphotoalbum.com

  13. #63
    Master OptiBoarder MVEYES's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Mt. Vernon Ohio
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    873

    Thumbs up Harry

    No truer words spoken.

    I'm off for my cup and a walk through our Optical arena.


    :bbg: :cheers: Jerry
    The mighty oak tree was once a little nut that held its ground

  14. #64
    Master OptiBoarder Joann Raytar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,948

    Re: Dear Pardner.....

    hcjilson said:
    Personally I would be less concerned with a licensed optician who couldn't block a lens than an optician who could not identify or neutralise a progressive lens. The fact with practical knowledge is: Either you know it or you don't.All too many people who have passed the ABO, don't have the practical skills necessary to operate an optical shop on their own.If I am going to hire a licensed optician, I would expect that they have the ability to operate on their own.Thats what the practical is all about ...

    ... Is just that I have to walk carefully around Jo till she's had her second cuppa!
    Harry,

    How did you know that I was only on cup number one? :p

    I am going to disagree with you on the use of certain equipment. I think that one of the things that hurts Opticians today is that fewer and fewer state practicals require Opticians to understand how the lenses get from a set of numbers they take to a finished pair of mounted lenses sitting on a patient's face.

    CT used to go as far as requiring that an Opticianry candidate sitting for the Eyeglass part of the state practical actually direct the process edging down a set of lenses. That part of the exam has been dropped. I am going to guess it was dropped because the official state designation of Mechanical Optician was dropped from the statutes. Personally, I think this is a shame. I think Opticians should not only understand glazing but surfacing also. You get a pretty good understanding of how all of those numbers you take interact and behave when you actually have to manufacture a pair of glasses.

    You are surprised that folks can't ID a set of lenses? In the old days you used to have to know what bifocal style, BC and what material you had before you ground the lenses. You also had to understand how materials and Rx parameters affected lens thickness, where the full cylinder power is and etc. Lesson learned right at the start before you even touched a patient. Mess up a drop and inset and you would learn that lesson over and over until you understood.

    This is why that question about what is fair on a practical is so tough to answer. If I had my way, an Optician would still need to know the mechanics involved with fitting eyewear because I believe that creates an Optician with a deeper understanding of what they are doing. Is it fair? Probably not. Going by the stats in the thread Homer started about Dispensing Opticians, more than half the population of Opticians will never see a surfacing lathe or laps let alone ever have to touch them.

  15. #65
    Master OptiBoarder MVEYES's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Mt. Vernon Ohio
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    873

    Thumbs up It sounds like

    We need a good definition of an Optician. Not only general but where the boundaries should be placed. How many of us have even seen a lens surfaced? How many of us have set up a lens for finishing? How many of us have soldered a frame?
    Many ideas to ponder for this definition. Check out my thread on the definition of an Optician.



    :cheers: :bbg: Jerry
    The mighty oak tree was once a little nut that held its ground

  16. #66
    Cape Codger OptiBoard Gold Supporter hcjilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cape Cod, Hyannis, MA. USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    7,437

    A Dispensing Optician....

    I know I may start a firestorm with this statement so I preface it by saying this is MY opinion only.A dispensing optician has little need to know the surfacing end of the business.If memory serves, CT used to require surfacing as part of their practical.( I always wondered how they did that....but it may have been a myth after all)At any rate they have dropped the requirement so its a moot point.

    I also suppose that this could be Jo's way of bringing me around to see the need for a task analysis.I do see that need HOWEVER, it doesn't have to occur before a practical is adopted.It can occur later if necessary, if and when the exam is updated.My philosophy is to adopt a National Practical Exam and make adjustments as the situation dictates.Jon is concerned by a legal challenge to the exam, and I, based on the amount of challenges to any optical practical (none that I know of) am not.

    In an effort to help with constructive alternatives I have made a some suggestions, so lets see what develops.
    hj
    "Always laugh when you can. It is a cheap medicine"
    Lord Byron

    Take a photo tour of Cape Cod and the Islands!
    www.capecodphotoalbum.com

  17. #67
    Master OptiBoarder Joann Raytar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,948
    Jerry,

    This also brings up why I support formal education. It is more than just about books; it is about Opticians learning about concepts they might never encounter in their daily work settings. Not every optical shop is going to have a lens generator or edgers but I bet most Opticianry Programs will.

    Surface and edge a couple of pairs of high plus and minus lenses and high cylinder lenses and you will understand more about why we fit the frames and lenses that we do.

    ;) Of course, I would probably be going too far by requiring that the above be done on an older generator where you have to use prism rings, account for elliptical error, figure out prism thinning on your own and manually bring the thickness down to get the right CT.

  18. #68
    Master OptiBoarder Joann Raytar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,948

    Re: A Dispensing Optician....

    hcjilson said:
    I know I may start a firestorm with this statement so I preface it by saying this is MY opinion only.A dispensing optician has little need to know the surfacing end of the business.If memory serves, CT used to require surfacing as part of their practical.( I always wondered how they did that....but it may have been a myth after all)At any rate they have dropped the requirement so its a moot point.
    Harry,

    If my memory serves me right, which it doesn't always anymore, it was done the same way as the edging part. You gave a tech the curves to be cut and an ending point as far as thickness and that person did the actual work. You then had to approve the product or instruct the tech on the next step.

    In edging for example, you would layout the lens, make a pattern and tell a tech to bring the lens down to 37.0 for the first cut. You would then check the sizing and either accept it or tell the tech to bring it down to 36.5 for example. Once the lens was on size you then had to mount the lens and inspect it.

    At least CT still requires that you "build" the frame you are fitting. You are given a Shuron combination frame and must choose the correct bridge width, eyesize and temple length then assemble and adjust them. My point, you better learn how to better fit a frame if you know how all of these numbers and their proportions to each other work.

    Back to your last reply. So you are saying that the end justifies the means. It doesn't matter how I end up with a finished product as long as it passes. Back to the autolensometer. I own my own shop. Figuring most shops will have older autolensometer, I can correctly neutralize X% of the lenses that I encounter with it. The other percent, progressives and lenses with prescribed prism may be a different matter. I now end up making and dispensing an incorrect pair of lenses because I don't know any better. I'll also argue that I made the lenses correctly because that's what my infallible machine read.

    This is the same concept as not being allowed to use calculators in math class. You will end up with the same answers as someone using a calculator but they won't be able to trouble shoot if their batteries die.

    PS - Yes, after that last anology, I know; maybe I should have a third cup of coffee. :p

    PPS - CT is trying to bring back certain sections of the old exams to toughen them up again. I have mentioned that they want to bring the Contact Lens Slides back. This is a good example. Do you want someone fitting contact lenses who doesn't recognize that there is a problem with a patients eye health?

  19. #69
    Master OptiBoarder Joann Raytar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,948

    Question

    If we took the most difficult areas of each state's practical exams and combined them into one, would that create a thorough but legal exam? Or do the demographics of each region differ so greatly that an exam of that nature still wouldn't be fair to all states?

  20. #70
    Rising Star
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Tennessee
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    267

    State Practical Exam

    Hi All:

    Let me give you some background on how I designed the practical examination currently adopted by North Carolina and Massachusetts and under consideration in several other states. In discussions with board members across the country, several mentioned that their state wanted them out of the testing business. That was an instant limiting factor. With this in mind, any test I developed had to be objective in design and written so that non-ophthalmic proctors could administer it.

    As an aside, the elimination of Board members as test supervisors poses a limitation that seems to inhibit the development of an in-depth, comprehensive practical that could be developed and administered in an economical manner. Non-ophthalmic proctors are not in the position to make professional judgments regarding opticianry topics and it’s doubtful that opticians not functioning as licensing board members would care to take on the task of determining the outcomes of subjective tasks such as frame adjustments or seg placement.

    Next, I referenced the Dispensing Optician Job Analyses prepared by the American Board of Opticianry Job Analysis Task Force with the assistance of the Professional Examination Service. As most of you know, this job analysis outlines the technical guidelines describing the work activities, knowledge, and skills of the dispensing optician. My feeling was that since these were already assembled, there was no need to plod forth and "rediscover" all this information. Using the analysis, I went through each domain and task to determine which skills could be measured in an objective manner.

    This done, I started designing a practical examination that could objectively test as many of these tasks as possible. I purposely limited the test scope to “day-to-day” knowledge areas and skills. That’s why there are no "trick" or obscure questions in this practical. For instance, I decided to avoid using slab-off lenses because in some states the optometric boards object when opticians determine this simple procedure. Along the same line, there are no Ultex or round-top bifocals; no Photogray Extra to identify and no Aspheric Lenticulars. Everything had to be encountered on an almost daily basis. Did these limitations test to the depth that I would have preferred? Heck NO! This was to be the ABO version of a practical where only the most basic and elementary of topics would be tested.

    Knowing that there is no such thing as the “perfect exam” I sought to develop a test that could evolve as the needs of the states change. At a later date other topics can be added so long as they do not require board member involvement or subjective grading by the proctors.

    So what do you do when you develop a test covering only the most basic of opticianry practical knowledge and encounter a 50% pass rate? Since I publish and make available to all test applicants the total test content, I'm not sure. In my opinion, the problem many licensing candidates have with this, or any other opticianry competency examination, is that they lack the basic skill to perform their job in an unsupervised environment. These shortcomings can only be solved through the formal education process. When we as an educated profession have a standardized base of knowledge, licensing pass rates will improve, and debate surrounding what constitutes minimum competencies will largely become a mote point.

    Oh well, so much for my comments. Sorry this was so long.

    Roy R. Ferguson, Ph.D.

  21. #71
    Cape Codger OptiBoard Gold Supporter hcjilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cape Cod, Hyannis, MA. USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    7,437

    Dear Pard,

    Now I know how you got so many posts......you just keep posting on yourself!!!:D

    The object of a practical exam is Not that it be difficult.It is supposed to be a fair and accurate measure of the day to day skills needed to be an optician.It only seems difficult because we remember the angst we felt before we took it.In retrospect it wasn't very hard at all....was it?

    Thats why I almost took exception to Jon's illustration of a ptosis crutch.I know he's not old enough to have made one out of a zyl riding bow temple and affix it to a zyl frame.I know HOW to fit a crutch but that is no measure of my practical knowledge as an optician, nor is it of anyone's.I fit one every once in a while because I get them sent to me every once in a while.I've found that Hilco does an excellent job at a lot less than I would charge for my time and I just adjust them.I have fit exactly 2 in the last 10 years.Thats not practical knowledge, thats talent!:D :D :D

    best from hj

    PS thanks for the input Dr Ferguson, we must have posted at the same time so I may sound somewhat redundant all over again.I wish I had seen yours first!:D
    Last edited by hcjilson; 03-11-2002 at 04:55 PM.
    "Always laugh when you can. It is a cheap medicine"
    Lord Byron

    Take a photo tour of Cape Cod and the Islands!
    www.capecodphotoalbum.com

  22. #72
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Charlottesville, Va. 22902
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    45
    Harry,
    I think you may have missunderstood me on a couple of points. (I am convinced that I must speak in tongues). I am well aware that it is our Boards responsibilty to create or amend the rule concerning the use of their own equipment when taking our exam, however the question is, has the industry evolved enough were there is a need to test both types of equipment. I am not sure you can answer that, and I know I can't. As for the ptosis crutch first let me thank you for saying I am too young to know how to fit one. I am apparently older than you think. Let me take this oppertunity to explain that I own three stores in Charlottesville Va. the proud home of Thomas Jefferson and the University of Virginia. The Universities ophthalmology dept competes head to head with John Hopkins and Duke for their coveted status of being the best, which translates into some strange requests since they refer all of their tough jobs to us. ( I have fit 5 crutches in the last couple of years). The point I was trying to make with the ptosis crutch was I don't believe that would be an entry level task and therefore should not be on an entry level exam. But who cares what I believe lets ask the industry if its important. My next concern is why would there be a written question on a practical exam, I thought that's why we have a written portion called the ABO. Which bings me back to the ABO it was created using subject matter experts. I was told that 26 experts created the task and job analysis and then the exam was created from that information. I am not discounting the experts, But I am asking how 26 people could possibly know how every task is completed in all the different avenues the optical industry has evolved into ie. independants, regional and or national chains, OD's and MD's officies. Did every licensed state have representation, did any of them represent a nonlicensed state, did they all live in the same state or did they all live in the same region of the country? I know you are better at this then I am, but trying to stay on top of what takes place in my three stores is about all I can handle. There is no time left to go down the road, not to mention across the state to see how a competitor completes a task. Because I don't have the oppertunity to witness how others do these task Iam left with assuming how they do them.

    I will say I whole heartly agree with you on not needing to test for surfacing and finishing knowledge. I believe if you are taking responsibility for the finished product you better know how its made but I don't need to test you on making it. One last question where do you get shuron combination frames? I thought they were out of business? I am not sure in todays market why we would test someones knowledge on their ability to order different bridge sizes when most frames that I order come in 3 eyesizes 1 bridge size.

    Harry you have repeated the statement that my concern for a defensible exam is unjustified. It's my understanding that Alaska has been challenged and I believe they lost. WHO'S NEXT? and what will it COST!

    Jon Bright

  23. #73
    Master OptiBoarder Joann Raytar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,948
    Jon Bright said:
    The point I was trying to make with the ptosis crutch was I don't believe that would be an entry level task and therefore should not be on an entry level exam. But who cares what I believe lets ask the industry if its important.
    I think this is where some of us get muddled. You are correct; there have been certain topics discussed here that probably aren't appropriate for an entry level exam.

    Now, Harry is concerned about folks being able to open an optical shop and knowing enough to have a clue about what they are doing. Is an entry level exam good enough for someone to go and open an optical shop?

    It sounds like we do need something more. Is it formal education? Perhaps. That is a different subject though.

    PS -

    Shuron is still around making the Ronsir line.:)

    I know today's three piece mounts, like the Silhoutte Titan's, usually come in two bridge sizes and whatever eyesize you ask your lab for.

  24. #74
    Master OptiBoarder MVEYES's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Mt. Vernon Ohio
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    873

    Question Educators

    You who teach in the associate degree programs, what type of practicals do you require your students to pass? Maybe if we looked at specific tasks that the schools are requiring we could create a practical from that information. As time goes on, the practical could be improved and the schools would teach toward passing the practical. Formal education and the practical for licensure would each feed on the need for one to support the other.
    In graduate school we would work through the whole semester of subject material (ie business forecasting) and at the same time have a project that related to this material. At the end of the semester we presented the project which was a real life application, defending our outcomes. This was an application of the theory and in the like situation the "new" Optician should demonstrate their ability to apply their theory based knowledge.
    Formal education first followed by "improved" practicals to create a dynamically educated Optician.


    :cheers: Jerry
    The mighty oak tree was once a little nut that held its ground

  25. #75
    Master OptiBoarder Cindy Hamlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Chester, VA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,598

    Re: State Practical Exam

    Roy R. Ferguson said:
    So what do you do when you develop a test covering only the most basic of opticianry practical knowledge and encounter a 50% pass rate? Since I publish and make available to all test applicants the total test content, I'm not sure. In my opinion, the problem many licensing candidates have with this, or any other opticianry competency examination, is that they lack the basic skill to perform their job in an unsupervised environment. These shortcomings can only be solved through the formal education process. When we as an educated profession have a standardized base of knowledge, licensing pass rates will improve, and debate surrounding what constitutes minimum competencies will largely become a mote point.
    Roy R. Ferguson, Ph.D.

    I guess I will beat this horse again and ask you a question.

    If the test is failed by 50% of the people taking it and in order to take it in almost all states some type of opticianry education is required (either apprenticeship or an assoicates degree) and these people passed the schooling to be eligible to sit for the board than how could 50% fail?

    You fault that "they lack the basic skill to perform their job in an unsupervised environment", but I ask then doesn't this fall to the teachers who taught these people?

    I attended my class and we went over all the areas of the practical and had hands-on training. We, too were provided with the tasks that would be tested and were then given the tools and the preparation to accomplish these. So then how could they not have the knowledge and skills to pass the test? This confounds me!

    And Harry, I have both worked in a surfacing lab (ground lenses, blocked lenses, prism rings and all) and I for one feel this is needed. I had some comprehension of the part that frame selection and RX had on a pair of glasses until I had this training. I could then choose better frames for patients and accurately give them an expectation of thickness if they ignored my recommendations. Which resulted in fewer remakes!
    Last edited by Cindy Hamlin; 03-12-2002 at 11:47 AM.
    ~Cindy

    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." -Catherine Aird-

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. MA. State Practical exam
    By wsclark in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-13-2004, 09:02 AM
  2. Practical State Board Exam...Judy you were right !
    By eyecarepro in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-25-2002, 09:39 PM
  3. I Lived Through My State Licensing Exam, need a little ENCOURAGEMENT...
    By eyecarepro in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-25-2002, 07:37 PM
  4. National Practical Examination
    By SharonB in forum Professional and Educational Organizations Discussion Forum
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 05-24-2002, 10:49 AM
  5. State Practical Exam
    By Jon Bright in forum Professional and Educational Organizations Discussion Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-28-2002, 01:24 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •