STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DWIGHT O'QUINN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 90-2406

)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND )

REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to Notice, this cause was heard by Linda M. Rigot, the assigned Hearing Officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings, on July 31, 1990, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Dwight O'Quinn, pro se

Stirling Road Apartments 4100 Northwest 77th Avenue Davie, Florida 33024

For Respondent: John W. Hedrick, Esquire

Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue presented is whether Petitioner should be awarded credit for his answers to eleven (11) questions on the September, 1989, Florida Behavior Analysis Certification Examination.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Department of Professional Regulation, which administered the September 19, 1989, Florida Behavior Analysis Certification Examination on behalf of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, notified Petitioner that he failed to achieve a passing grade on that examination, and Petitioner requested a formal hearing regarding his answers to a number of questions on that examination. This matter was thereafter transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of that formal proceeding.

The Petitioner testified on his own behalf, and Petitioner's composite exhibit numbered 1 was admitted in evidence. The Respondent presented the testimony of Dr. James M. Johnston and Dr. Eunice Lowe.

The Respondent submitted post-hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact can be found in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner sat for the Florida Behavior Analysis Certification Examination administered on September 19, 1989. He failed to achieve a passing score on that examination.

   
   

2. At the final hearing, Petitioner challenged the score he achieved on that examination by raising a general challenge to the vagueness of the examination and by challenging the score given for his answers to questions numbered 11, 12, 16, 27, 42, and 53 on Part II of the examination.

   
   

3. Part I, Item 12, is correctly scored as "A" instead of Petitioner's "C" because the question asks about a topographical definition, i.e., the form of the behavior. "A" describes the form of the behavior, while "C" partly refers to

   form but also includes extraneous information. Therefore, "C" is an incorrect alternative since it is more than a topographical definition.

   
   

4. Part I, Item 45, is correctly scored as "A", the most reasonable inference from the two levels of responding. Petitioner's choice of "B" is incorrect because the baseline level of responding has not been established.

   
   

5. Part I, Item 72, is correctly scored as "B" instead

   of Petitioner's "A". The question asked for the least intrusive prompt, and the gestural prompt in "B" is less intrusive than "A", a demonstration prompt.

   
   

6. Part I, Item 83, is correctly scored as "C". "C" specifies a loss of candy every time the client hurls the object, which is not only accepted practice in the field but also agrees with the literature in the field that punishment procedures should follow a behavior each time the behavior occurs. Petitioner'S choice of "A" is not acceptable because the problem behavior could escalate and there is currently only a slight decrease in the client's behavior.

   
   

7. Part I, Item 85, is correctly scored as "A" rather than Petitioner'S answer of "B". The literature in the field

   reveals that when a behavior receives intermittent reinforcement,

   the behavior is more resistant to extinction. Although "B" is sometimes correct, it is sometimes incorrect and, therefore, is a

   less desirable alternative.

   
   

8. Part II, Item 11, is scored correctly as "A" rather than "C" as Petitioner chose because the question asked for a behavioral goal. "A" is a good example of a goal, which is a general statement of the behavior change intended; however, "C" is a good example of a behavioral objective rather than a goal because that alternative specifies particular details.

9. Part II, Item 12, is correctly scored as "C" rather than "B" as Petitioner chose. The question asks for the most

   appropriate and concise statement of a behavioral objective. "C" has all the information required, but "B" does not state the performance criteria that would be required for the trainer to know when work has been completed, when the objective has been met.

   
   

10. Part II, Item 16, is scored correctly as "B" rather than "A" because "B" adequately describes the nature of the environment in which training will occur, while "A" is vague and nonspecific.

    
    

11. Part II, Item 27, is correctly scored as "B" rather

    than "A". "B" specifies the most appropriate example of training for program procedures and is a direct technique of demonstration rather than "A", an indirect training procedure of posting the procedure and announcing there will be a quiz on it.

    
    

12. Part II, Item 42, is scored correctly as "B" rather than "A". Answer "B" specifies the particular behaviors that

    staff should be engaging in so that their monitors or supervisors can observe and mark on a checklist if those behaviors did or did not occur. On the other hand, answer "A" does not specify the particular staff behaviors to be observed, and it uses a rating system which has inherent problems because the meaning of each rating description is subjective.

    
    

13. Part II, Item 53, is correctly scored as a wrong answer because Petitioner omitted one of the key parts of the correct answer to the question. The omitted information is a reference to the process which is critical to classical

    conditioning, i.e., the pairing of the sound of the bell with the monitor's movement toward the shelf. Partial credit is not given for a partially-correct answer.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

14. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter hereof and the parties hereto. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

15. The burden of proof is on Petitioner to show that the questions he has challenged are either ambiguous or have an incorrect solution. Accordingly, Petitioner is required to show that the question could reasonably be interpreted in more than one way or that Respondent's solution is erroneous and Petitioner's solution is correct. As to each of the questions challenged in this proceeding, Petitioner has failed to prove that any question could reasonably be interpreted in more than one way, using good grammar, or that Respondent's solution was

erroneous and Petitioner's solution was correct. Petitioner has also failed in his general challenge to the examination. Petitioner's general position is that many questions on the examination were vague. Petitioner has failed to identify those questions alleged to be vague, and his general comments do not identify any question for which credit can be given to his answer to that question.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenges

to the 20 1989, Florida

Behavior Analysis Certification Examination and finding that Petitioner failed to achieve a passing grade on that Examination.

DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20 day of September, 1990.

LINDA M. RIGOT

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20 day of September 1990.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-2406

1. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-13 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order.

2. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 14

   has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause.

3. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 15

has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law or argument of counsel.

COPIES FURNISHED:

John W. Hedrick, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard

Building 1, Suite 407

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

Dwight O'Quinn

Stirling Road Apartments 4100 Northwest 77th Avenue Davie, Florida 33024

Docket for Case No: 90-002406

Orders for Case No: 90-002406