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.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the Florida Behavior Analysis Certification Examination administered on September 19, 1989. He failed to achieve a passing score on that examination. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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 Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-13 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 14 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. 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
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner should be awarded credit for his answers to five (5) questions on the September, 1989, Florida Behavior Analysis Certification Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the Florida Behavior Analysis Certification Examination administered on September 19, 1989. He failed to achieve a passing score on that examination. At the final hearing, Petitioner challenged the score he achieved on that examination by raising a general challenge to the essay portion of the examination and by challenging the score given for his answers to questions numbered 60 on Part I, and his answers to questions numbered 11, 36, 42, and 43 on Part II of the examination. Part I, Item 60, was correctly answered as "C" rather than Petitioner's answer of "B" because raisins and water are quickly consumed, minimally interfere with ongoing training activity and, therefore, would be an excellent functional reinforcer. However, reading would take much longer and is counterproductive since reading is a quiet, non-physical activity, and the staff member is trying to increase the client's physical movement. Part II, Item 11, was correctly answered with "A" instead of Petitioner's choice of "C" because "A" is a statement of a goal, which is a general statement. "C" is a good example of an objective because it includes specified criteria and time scales. The question asked for a goal. Part II, Item 36, asks which method of staffing violates legal and/or ethical requirements and standards. Respondent's expert admitted that the question was not well constructed and that answer "B" which was keyed as the correct answer is not correct. Respondent argues that solution "C" is the best answer since it violates the most legal and ethical standards. However, the question does not request the solution which violates the most legal and ethical standards. Since solution "C" and solution "A" chosen by Petitioner both violate legal and/or ethical requirements and standards", both "C" and "A" are correct answers. Part II, Item 42, is correctly scored as "B" rather than Petitioner's choice of "A" because "B" specifies the particular behaviors that the staff should be engaging in so that the monitoring or supervisory staff can observe a staff member and then mark on a checklist whether those specific behaviors did or did not occur. Answer "A" does not specify the particular staff behaviors being observed, and it uses a rating system which has inherent problems because different meanings can be attributed to each rating description. Part II, Item 43, is correctly scored as "A" rather than "C" as chosen by Petitioner. "A" specifies checking the staff behavior according to performance criteria on a monthly basis and is positively oriented by giving positive reinforcement for competent performance, giving corrective feedback, and requiring performance to improve to specified criteria. "C" does not describe the monitoring process, does not specify frequency, does not specify giving corrective feedback, and provides for praising only limited behaviors.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered awarding to Petitioner credit for his answer to Item 36 of Part II, and rejecting the remainder of Petitioner's challenges to the September 19, 1989, Florida Behavior Analysis Certification Examination. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st 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 21st day of September 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-2407 Petitioner's first through fourth, sixth, seventh, and eleventh through seventeenth unnumbered paragraphs have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony, argument, or conclusions of law. Petitioner's fifth, eighth, and tenth unnumbered paragraphs have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's ninth unnumbered paragraph has been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4, 6, and 7 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 8 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. 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 William Robinson Foundation for Learning 1489 South University Drive Plantation, Florida 33324
