NBEO Boards Scores to be released June 9

This forum made possible through the generous support of
SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

OptometrusPrime

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Tomorrow, we get an update on the NBEO examination results/scores that were delayed due to accusations of cheating.

I thought I might open a discussion on the matter. I certainly hope that tomorrow is the day. Keep in mind, they did say June 9th was the "earliest" we would get an update.


... But when all is said and done, I doubt they will delay scores beyond tomorrow.

Any thoughts?

-OP

Members don't see this ad.
 
I hope we all get some good news. Good luck everyone :)

This wait has been too long. We need to need find out our scores soon and move on. I hope they don't delay scores past tomorrow.
 
I also assume that some information will be released about the results of their investigation at NECO.

However, I doubt they will specifically mention the school, but instead remain more general. All efforts will be made to save the good name of the New England School of Optometry, and rightly so. Not everyone was involved and shouldn't take blame for cheating or gathering questions for the national boards exam.

-OP
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I highly doubt that they will release specific information about the cheating scandal.

Well whatever news they have tomorrow i hope its a good one. I dont think it would be fair if everyone has to re-take the exam or be punished.
 
Sorry to divert from the topic, but OP - your screen name is made of win. :thumbup:

Good luck everyone.
 
Did any of you guys use Butterworth and Heinemann for Part One? If so, did you find the questions to be helpful?

Thank you...getting an early start on studying for Boards.

Best of luck to you all!! I would be going crazy if my scores were held this long!
 
Last edited:
Did any of you guys use Butterworth and Heinemann for Part One? If so, did you find the questions to be helpful?

Thank you...getting an early start on studying for Boards.

Best of luck to you all!! I would be going crazy if my scores were held this long!

You just finished first year and you're already starting? You've barely even learned anything at this point. I'm a third year and if I started studying now, I'd just have to re-study everything because I'll forget by the time boards roll around. Maybe you have an awesome memory though, I don't! lol.
 
So no information has been posted today. The committee met in Arizona recently, and I have word from the dean that information will be given "within a week".

He also says that people won't like the results of the decision that has been made.

I don't know if that means a retake (people within optometry won't like that) or that those involved will not be punished (those outside will not look positively on our profession).
 
Is this your school's dean that said it will released in a week. I dont understand why do they need more time. This wait has been the longest and most stressful of my life.
 
>He also says that people won't like the results of the decision that has been made.

This is obviously hearsay, but I'd take it to mean there will be discipline involved.
 
Is this your school's dean that said it will released in a week. I dont understand why do they need more time. This wait has been the longest and most stressful of my life.

Personally, I'd brace myself for the worst-case-scenario.

The related thread in the NBEO forum shows the guy in charge at the NBEO (some PhD guy, not an OD) is a heavy-hitter who isn't there to protect the profession or individuals, but to protect the integrity of the test. My sense is he'll pursue this to the fullest extent.

From a post over there:

"http://www.testpublishers.org/Con2002/bios.html

[SIZE=-1]Leon Gross, Ph.D.[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
Director of Psychometrics & Research
National Board of Examiners in Optometry[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Leon Gross, Ph.D. serves as Director of Psychometrics and Research for the National Board of Examiners in Optometry, and as psychometric consultant to other credentialing boards. Under his leadership, the National Board in Optometry became the first national board for a fully licensed health profession to replace grading-on-a-curve with criterion-referenced standards, and the first to implement a national performance test.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Dr. Gross has served as a commissioner on the National Commission for Certifying Agencies, and as founding editor of the CLEAR Exam Review, and principal co-author of Principles of Fairness for the Council on Licensure, Enforcement, and Regulation. He has numerous publications and has given many presentations on testing issues.[/SIZE]

In the link above from Blyssful, he's quoted as saying:

"I see no reason it would affect one profession and not another," said Leon Gross, associate executive director of the National Board of Examiners in Optometry.

He authored the following essays:

https://www.fsbpt.org/ForFaculty/NPTEArticles/PsychometricPart1/
https://www.fsbpt.org/ForFaculty/NPTEArticles/PsychometricPart2/

"What then is our biggest fear? Consider memorization of test content. I am not referring to inevitable, isolated recall of a particularly easy, difficult, or personally resonating item. Rather, I am referring to the systematic, concerted, organized memorization of test items by groups or classes of test takers for the specific purpose of reproduction and distribution, whether for sale or as a free study aide for future candidates."

"When a law is broken, "I didn't know" is not a sufficient explanation, justification, or excuse."

"It is surprising how many faculties are unaware of the intellectual property issues. In fact, I have heard of situations in several professions in which students were asked by faculty to memorize items. To some extent, this is because faculties are sometimes evaluated by their students' performance on board tests. Despite good intentions, the ethical and legal infringements of this activity must be addressed by boards and understood by academic institutions. In particular, an organized MRD effort with faculty involvement could taint the entire academic program. This is not an exaggeration -- one academic institution has already been named in the podiatry litigation."

This guy seems to be into serious hardball."
 
I also assume that some information will be released about the results of their investigation at NECO.

However, I doubt they will specifically mention the school, but instead remain more general. All efforts will be made to save the good name of the New England School of Optometry, and rightly so. Not everyone was involved and shouldn't take blame for cheating or gathering questions for the national boards exam.
-OP
If it proves out that a faculty member was involved, NECO deserves to get drug through the mud a little over this (& my NECO alum partner agrees).
 
Is this your school's dean that said it will released in a week. I dont understand why do they need more time. This wait has been the longest and most stressful of my life.

Yes, this is my school's dean. He was purposefully being very vague. But he did not say "it will be a week". He said "within a week".

I couldn't get any more specific information from him by what he meant by people won't like the decision that has been made.

1) People being punished won't like it? Meaning they will be punished heavily.

2) Optometry students won't like it? Retake for everyone.

3) Outsiders won't like it? No punishment and appearance of lax standards for the profession of optometry.

Like I said, the dean would not elaborate, so these options and more are left to speculation at this point.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
You just finished first year and you're already starting? You've barely even learned anything at this point. I'm a third year and if I started studying now, I'd just have to re-study everything because I'll forget by the time boards roll around. Maybe you have an awesome memory though, I don't! lol.

I guess call me a go-getter? LoL. I definitely want to pass boards 1st time around..and since I am in PR for the whole summer I might as well spend it wisely (this is what happens when your significant other moves with you and lands a full time job!!! :eek:) But yeah, I have a lot of down time and would rather spend it studying and reviewing information rather than getting a low paying BS job.

After purchasing Butterworth Heinemann's Part One, it seems I can go through a good amount of the book material after my first year. Out of 21 chapters, I can do: Gross Anatomy, Histology, some Neuroscience, General Biochemistry, General Physiology, General Microbiology, General Immunology, General Pharmacology, General Pathology, Anatomy of the Eye and Visual Pathway, very little Ocular Pharmacology, Geometric Optics, Ophthalmic Optics, and Human Development.

I would rather reinforce this information before I forget them by summer of 2nd year, then focus on the 2nd year stuff next summer. The reason I am doing this is because I have a BAD memory lol. Oh yea, and BOOORRREEEDDD haha.

Good luck studying Boards JMU! Keep me posted on some study techniques or new material that may be helpful. BTW, are you going to take the KMK course?
 
:mad::mad::mad::mad:

This is soo frustrating. May be its a bad news for all of us so that's why they are pushing it too late to the office closing time..Good luck everyone!!
 
I understand the frustration. The only reason why I am not more freaked out is because I took KMK and feel confident that I did well.

KMK covers everything quite well. The weakest part of the book and course is the optics part, which I supplemented with random other materials in order to fill the void.

If I were a student who felt like I may have failed the Boards exam, I would be freaking out and the last couple months would have felt like hell.

-OP
 
Dude.. will you chill with advertising KMK. We all used it to study and it certainly did not cover all that was on the exam. Even if I had studied ALL the material that was on the exam I would be freeking out just the same with all that is going on right now. So please... save the KMK adds for another topic on the forum
 
Excuse me, just a couple side notes from some "critics" of mine.

1)

"Dude.. will you chill with advertising KMK. We all used it to study and it certainly did not cover all that was on the exam."

Sorry, but that was the first and only post message where I have even mentioned KMK. The main reason I even said anything about it was to warn against trusting its optics section, which I knew was weak.

I am not a representative of KMK, nor do I have any benefit from KMK. Someone else mentioned KMK, then I gave my personal experience with it. I never said that KMK covered everything that was on the test. I just said that I felt pretty confident because after taking the course and studying the material well with some extra supplement with optics, I feel confident that I passed.

--------------------------------------------

2) I got a personal message saying that I shouldn't have mentioned the school involved in the investigation. The cat has been out of the bag for awhile now.

Emails were frozen at that school for the investigation (That is when I found out about which school it was). Now, if you go to the new england college of optometry website, you will find a link near the bottom of the page "update" concerning the investigation:

Update on the National Board of Examiners Investigation

As many of you know, the NBEO is looking into the possible misuse of test preparation materials used in conjunction with Part 1 of the national exam.
I cannot emphasize strongly enough that the New England College of Optometry is committed to the highest standards of academic and professional ethics. We are engaged in a joint examination with the NBEO and will continue to do so until their work has
been completed. We appreciate that it is the integrity of the Board’s testing process that makes their tests a requirement for licensure and for entering the practice of optometry. One of our first-year students’ very first classes is Professional Ethics. Our Ethics Policy is also an integral part of our student handbook, which students are expected to follow in
all their academic pursuits. No matter the outcome of NBEO’s inquiry, both the course and the handbook will be reinvigorated to ensure that students fully appreciate their responsibilities in this area.

Clifford Scott, OD, MPH
President
 
Good luck studying Boards JMU! Keep me posted on some study techniques or new material that may be helpful. BTW, are you going to take the KMK course?

I'm not sure yet! I'll probably talk to a bunch of people and see what the consensus is. I never took a course for any other test but boards are just a teeny bit more important than the SAT or OAT, lol, so I probably will. I'll let you know how it goes!
 
Here is the information that we have been waiting for today
-----------------------------------------------
The Board of Directors of the National Board of Examiners in Optometry are announcing that Scores from the March 16-17, 2010 Part I examination will be released at 1:00PM EDT, next Tuesday, June 15, 2010. However, these Scores shall be considered TENTATIVE, pending the completion of the NBEO investigation into the alleged item piracy scheme. The June 15th Score release will allow Candidates who were not successful in passing the March 2010 administration to register to take the August Part I exam before the close of registration on June 27, 2010.

The NBEO Board of Directors understands and regrets the undeserved anxiety suffered by those Candidates who took their Part I exams in honest, ethical fashion and yet have had to endure the postponement of Score release due to the requisite investigation.

In response to comments that have come to the attention of the Board, Part I Scores will be released on Tuesday in as timely a fashion as possible under extraordinarily trying circumstances. The probability of a cheating scheme came to the NBEO’s attention in late March and early April. Because the NBEO mission is to provide state optometry boards with valid test scores that are used to determine qualification for licensure, the decision to react to the affront on protected, copyrighted NBEO examination material was imperative and immediate.

Since then, the NBEO has been continuously engaged in an extensive and thorough process of investigation, analysis and decision-making. The NBEO is respectful of the Candidate angst over the delay in releasing scores. Throughout the process, the NBEO has striven to reach the point of score release as soon as possible, while remaining true to its overarching duty to conduct a thorough and fair investigation to ensure the validity of test scores.
----------------------------------------------------
 
I can't believe it took them the whole day to post this news.Why couldn't they post this news in the morning or even afternoon.
 
For those curious minds out there, here is how the rules were broken.

As you know, last year we had a new kind of national boards examination. A faculty member at NECO helped organized students to memorize 2-3 questions from each section of the boards test and then they wrote those questions that they memorized down after each section.

Those questions were then compiled together in order to re-create some of the exam in order to help subsequent students on the boards test the following year.

This is clearly in violation of the rules.

What I don't know is how they are going to handle it. They are releasing "tentative" scores, which is actually a good sign in the sense that I don't believe we will have to retake it. (Thank God).

The difficulty is determining who had access to the information and how to statistically remove those questions/students from the data and correct for the unfair advantage. Who knows how they will determine who had access to which questions ... questions whose concepts are often repeated. THAT is what is taking so long.

-OP
 
So only one school was involved?

Why is it the initial news that came out seemed to suggest 3-4 schools were involved?
 
So only one school was involved?

Why is it the initial news that came out seemed to suggest 3-4 schools were involved?

Where did you hear that? Both of the threads about it have always said it was only one school, I think.
 
Unless she is referring to the NBEO thread where a couple of schools were speculated, from hearsay.
 
Yes, my bad.

There was a post somewhere that seemed to imply this incident was affecting 3-4 schools. I can't find the post - but the NBEO statement identifies only one school under investigation - so I must be remembering the speculation.

Optometrus - care to share how many individuals this involved?
 
Actually, "OptometryStuden" posted in the NBEO thread that there was 15 folks. He/she seems to be pretty legit.

"Just an FYI, the 15 people that were investigated (that's right, only 15 out of the entire class) were told by our school president last week that the boards were not going to penalize them for any wrong doing b/c they didn't find any information that would constitute as cheating...even after going through all their emails and gaining access to their computer files."
 
Yes, my bad.

There was a post somewhere that seemed to imply this incident was affecting 3-4 schools. I can't find the post - but the NBEO statement identifies only one school under investigation - so I must be remembering the speculation.

Optometrus - care to share how many individuals this involved?

I only know of one school investigated and I don't know how many people were involved. I also don't know how they will be punished.

Essentially, I just gave all of the information that I know so far.

-OP
 
Actually, "OptometryStuden" posted in the NBEO thread that there was 15 folks. He/she seems to be pretty legit.

"Just an FYI, the 15 people that were investigated (that's right, only 15 out of the entire class) were told by our school president last week that the boards were not going to penalize them for any wrong doing b/c they didn't find any information that would constitute as cheating...even after going through all their emails and gaining access to their computer files."

That is interesting that they concluded there was no cheating, considering that before each session of the boards, each candidate is explicitly told NOT to try and reproduce any of the questions from the examination and signs off saying that they understand.

While the boards test bank is large, there are some test questions that are just bound to be really good test questions that are high yield. In other words, they are clear questions that students understand, test a concept well, and do not have previous objections to the question.

Therefore, if students start making a bank of test questions from previous years to share with their school's future candidates, it gives them an unfair advantage.

Furthermore, if there was no unfair advantage, why delay test scores so long? Why are the scores to be released only "tentative"?

-OP
 
"Just an FYI, the 15 people that were investigated (that's right, only 15 out of the entire class) were told by our school president last week that the boards were not going to penalize them for any wrong doing b/c they didn't find any information that would constitute as cheating...even after going through all their emails and gaining access to their computer files."

This was the post from the other thread that was deleted...right? Do you know when it was posted to begin with? ...Like perhaps the beginning of May?

If so, how does this person claim that it was determined there was no cheating if they hadn't even finished their investigation yet?

-OP
 
I know. I was thinking the same thing. Who knows?

Yes - the comment was posted early May.
 
Last edited:
So only one school was involved?

Why is it the initial news that came out seemed to suggest 3-4 schools were involved?

I think the initial news indicated that people involved were at more than one testing location ... not necessarily more than one school.
 
So it seems all they will do is release the scores today, and not necessarily announce the results of the investigation.

I wonder if the investigation results will even be declared.
 
after attending the AOA conference in Orlando this past weekend, it is confirmed by the NBEO that 'some' schools did not get their scores. Meaning NECO was not just the only school involved in the investigation.
 
The recent NBEO statement said they were investigating students who apparently emailed or received emails from the students at the school they were investigating - so the investigation potentially is very broad.
 
With the weight of what a final declaration of their investigation will be and how it will impact those involved, I think the NBEO will take quite a bit of time before deciding exactly what to do with those involved. I actually took the first part of boards in Boston (I don't, however, go to NECO). Not that it means anything at all - just strange. I hope they don't come down lightly on those directly responsible. We don't need a new breed of unethical ODs running around.
 
This is what I found when I searched for it today. Wow. Read some of the responses/comments from people in Boston relating to this and the timing of it.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/15/optical_collusion/

Pretty harsh.

Optical collusion By Lawrence Harmon Globe Columnist / July 15, 2010
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/15/optical_collusion/

THE NEW England College of Optometry has a serious case of myopia. It failed to detect a cheating scandal on its Back Bay campus so widespread that the National Board of Examiners in Optometry has invalidated the licensure test scores for the entire Class of 2011.

Aberrant scores on the first part of a three-part test conducted in March caught the attention of national examiners who develop and administer the tests used by state regulators to license optometrists. In May, the North Carolina-based examiners’ group launched a full probe, including visits to the 450-student Boston campus. The investigation revealed that a “significant number of students’’ had engaged in “an organized attempt to memorize confidential, copyrighted exam content in order to reproduce it for use by other students taking future administrations of the exam.’’ More disturbing, the piracy scheme was undertaken “at the request and encouragement of a faculty member,’’ according to the board of examiners.

This isn’t some low-stakes cheating scandal on the part of people whose main function is to sell sporty eyewear and tinted contact lenses. Optometrists undergo four years of intensive study after their undergraduate studies. They diagnose and treat complicated eye disorders, including glaucoma and damage to the retina associated with diabetes. The cheating scandal undermines the academic program of the college and causes the public to think twice about entrusting its vision to an optometrist.

The “how’’ of this scandal is more visible than the “why.’’ Some test questions on national exams are often similar in both form and content from year to year. By assigning willing students to memorize questions, it becomes possible to reconstruct the entire exam, according to Dr. Jack Terry, executive director of the National Board of Examiners. Neither the college nor the examiners have divulged the name of the professor suspected of encouraging the cheating ring. But Terry said his investigators uncovered no evidence that any money changed hands.

Instead, the motive for the memorization scheme suggests a culture of dishonesty in which the current class benefits from the test theft of the previous class, and then passes on questions to the next class via the college’s internal website. Examiners believe the process got underway with the Class of 2009. But they will be probing further back and extending the investigation to other colleges of optometry, according to Terry.

Ethical values at the New England College of Optometry, which has trained about 70 percent of the region’s optometrists, are looking blurry. Dr. Clifford Scott, president of the college, said there is often “a fine line between a study guide and an organized plan to memorize questions.’’ In this case, however, it’s pretty obvious that some of his students and one of his faculty members not only crossed that line, but stomped all over it. Scott expressed legitimate concern for honest students whose scores were invalidated. National examiners have not cited how many students in the roughly 100-member class were involved. But the “widespread exposure’’ of pirated items left them little choice but to invalidate scores for the entire class.

Terry said all the students will be given a chance to take a revamped examination in August. But the examiners’ board, he said, reserves the right to invalidate future scores and bar suspected students from taking additional sections of the test needed to secure their licenses. Meanwhile, there could be recent graduates of the college who cheated on their license tests and are now practicing. The state Board of Registration in Optometry, which licenses new optometrists, owes it to the public to find that out.

Another area for inquiry is whether the college is trying to bump up its pass rates on the licensing test as a means to compete for students. The college won’t release those rates, making it look like an institution that guards test scores more closely than its integrity. Scott did say, however, that faculty evaluations are not linked to student performance on the licensing test.

High-stakes exams like licensing tests create strong motivation to cheat. Whether willfully or unintentionally, officials at the College of Optometry didn’t see what was taking place before their very eyes. The only way to correct that flaw is to get rid of the cheaters and those who condone them.
 
Top