1 / 9

Producer Licensing Public Hearing: Testimony

Producer Licensing Public Hearing: Testimony. Christopher K. Beer Senior Content Developer August 17, 2010. Cut Scores. Purpose : to determine the point of “minimal competence” This point is the pass/fail cut line

vlad
Télécharger la présentation

Producer Licensing Public Hearing: Testimony

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Producer Licensing Public Hearing: Testimony Christopher K. BeerSenior Content Developer August 17, 2010

  2. Cut Scores • Purpose: to determine the point of “minimal competence” • This point is the pass/fail cut line • Determined by a committee of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) selected and/or approved by the state’s insurance department • The committee conceptualizes what a minimally competent candidate “is” • They relate the knowledge/skills/abilities of this minimally competent candidate to the items

  3. Cut Scores • Two primary methods to establish the cut score are used: • Angoff – used when statistics are not available • Bookmark – used when statistics are available • These methods are both an art and a science

  4. Item and Test Development • SMEs review and write items at virtual and in-person test development meetings • SMEs are advised to write items on an 8th grade reading level (except for insurance terminology) • Items are edited and new items written and referenced directly to state law • Item performance statistics for each item are shared with the SMEs to assist them in their review • The meetings are always facilitated by a Pearson VUE content developer • This helps to ensure SMEs follow content development best practices

  5. Item Bias and Difficulty • An analysis of item bias is performed in several states where required by law • Item and test difficulty are continually monitored by Pearson VUE’s Measurement team • Test forms that show disparate pass rates are flagged and “fixed”

  6. Revalidation of Exam Content • General product knowledge items are revalidated every 2 to 4 years • State-specific items based on state laws and rules are revalidated every 1 to 2 years • How often the state-specific items are reviewed is specified by the state insurance department • Most states review their major lines items annually

  7. Pre-licensing Education • Some states ask Pearson VUE to collect PE provider information from each candidate after they sit an exam via a survey • States decide whether to share pass rates by provider with the public

  8. Standardization • The General Product Knowledge section: • Developed nationally via a job task analysis • SMEs licensed across all 51 jurisdictions participate • The same exam items administered across all client states • The right mix of general content applicable to all producer/agent candidates and state-specific knowledge important to each individual jurisdiction

  9. Study Guides • Because it would be a conflict of interest, Pearson VUE does not develop study material for insurance licensing exams • A content outline is made public that serves as a “blue print” for content that may be tested on the exam • This is sent to publishers and providers several weeks before changes to the exams are made • It is posted to Pearson VUE’s website and inserted into candidate handbooks • The outline includes references to state laws and rules with which candidates are expected to be familiar

More Related