Latent Certification written test

[Bill Schade]

Topic for discussion:

I have heard from a number of applicants who sat for the test recently and they all passed the comparison part of the test and failed the written test.

This surprised me because I have almost never heard of anyone failing the written test in the past. It was always the comparison segment that caused the most anxiety for test takers and usually required re testing.

Is this a new trend? Are test takers preparing for the wrong part of the test (comparisons) and neglecting the book work? Is the written test outside the scope of most examiners required knowledge base?

No answers from me, just questions.

It's awfully expensive to have to take the test a second time because I didn't know the seven layers of skin

[Steve Everist]

Topic for discussion:

I have heard from a number of applicants who sat for the test recently and they all passed the comparison part of the test and failed the written test.

Is the written test outside the scope of most examiners required knowledge base?

Before I had taken the CCSA test, I sat in at a presentation by the Crime Scene Cert Board at an IAI conference. They were revamping the test and discussing the process. The one thing they made clear was that, even if the answer to a question is different than you're experience, the answer always comes from the reading materials. I would assume this is the same for the LP cert test.

[Boyd Baumgartner]

I know people have various study guides floating around for the written portion including specific questions pulled out of the reading. If anyone wants to send me theirs I could compile a database of questions and make it available as a free study tool.

If you're interested and have some questions you want to send my way, send them to boyd dot Baumgartner at gmail dot com

[Dr. Borracho]

An acquaintance at one accredited lab advised me their training program for latent print examiners has been reduced from two years to fifteen weeks. If shortening training programs is a trend, I could see where that might have an impact on test scores.

[Bill Schade]

Topic for discussion:

I have heard from a number of applicants who sat for the test recently and they all passed the comparison part of the test and failed the written test.

Is the written test outside the scope of most examiners required knowledge base?

Before I had taken the CCSA test, I sat in at a presentation by the Crime Scene Cert Board at an IAI conference. They were revamping the test and discussing the process. The one thing they made clear was that, even if the answer to a question is different than you're experience, the answer always comes from the reading materials. I would assume this is the same for the LP cert test.

That is not what I was wondering.

I was thinking more along the lines of "does the written test require knowledge that is unnecessary to do the job?"

I realize a certified prctitioner should have a boad knowledge base about all things fingerprint related, but it didn't seem to be a problem in the past.

[Steve Everist]

That is not what I was wondering.

I was thinking more along the lines of "does the written test require knowledge that is unnecessary to do the job?"

I realize a certified prctitioner should have a boad knowledge base about all things fingerprint related, but it didn't seem to be a problem in the past.

Then the question becomes who gets to decide what is necessary to do the job, per the test, since the job has many different aspects depending on where you work?

Also, it should probably be decided what being certified means - proficiency vs some higher level.

[Boyd Baumgartner]

Is the written test outside the scope of most examiners required knowledge base?

It's a meaty question which weaves through several recurring topics on the board and I think it should be taken in context.

• The NAS Report (pdf pg 230) states:

  ... certification is a process specifically designed to ensure the competency of the individual examiner. The American Bar Association has recommended that certification standards be required of examiners, including “demanding written examinations, proficiency testing, continuing education, recertification procedures, an ethical code, and effective disciplinary procedures.”35 In addition to improving quality, certification programs can enhance the credibility of certificate holders. An excellent description of the certification process is contained in the following excerpt from the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) Web site:

  • In general, certification boards consist of respected professionals in a particular area of professional practice who develop standards for education, training, and experience that are required before one can become ‘certified’ in a particular professional discipline. Successful completion of a written and/or practical examination is also usually required. In essence, ‘certification’ usually means that a particular individual has completed a defined course of education, training, and experience, and has passed an examination prepared by peers which demonstrates that the individual has obtained at least the minimum level of competence required to practice the specific discipline. A number of ‘Certification Boards’ exist for people in various scientific disciplines. . . .36

If you take the NAS report as authoritative as I would say most people probably do, then at a bare minimum Steve's questions are answered. Certification is ..at least the minimum level of competence required to practice the specific discipline. It's less a test of excellence and more a least common denominator. This however brings into question something like 'Should competency tests include examinations that mimic casework since certification demonstrates the competence required to practice the specific discipline?', or 'Is case work level difficulty something that is more suited for proficiency tests?' I don't think anyone would consider either of those tests arising to the level of casework.

Furthermore, with all the talk on articulation these days, shouldn't certification, or proficiency include some oral boards that demonstrate articulation in testimony, considering that is where all the consternation is focused? Has anyone ever failed the 'send in the transcripts' portion of the certification test, and is that even possible to fail? Are there published standards for what counts as passing that portion? I would say history would arguably fall into the articulation category because an historical perspective is needed to view where we were, where we are, to give context to where we're potentially going. While the NAS report quotation above says that certification enhances credibility, it can easily be diminished through the inability to articulate what you did, why you did it and the limitations of your method. If you can't do that, certification is arguably just bolstering.

[josher89]

Certification is just like accreditation. Just because you are certified or accredited doesn't make you better than someone or someplace that isn't. Both realms have great employees and some bad ones. I would argue that the NAS report should not be authoritative also the legal system wants it to be (and maybe very soon the PCAST report). In fact, there are judicial notices that the NAS report isn't a learned treatise; rather, it's the opinion of a lot of people that may or may not be correct--just like the PCAST!

Limit use of NAS Report as a Learned Treatise NAS Report DC Court of Appeals.pdf

Certification is an outward indication that you've taken additional steps to show your competency. If it isn't being evaluated properly, that's an issue. When it comes to the written and comparison, there's little (if any) room for improper evaluation. When it comes to testimony, you might have said the wrong things but the evidence was accepted in that court. Does the measure of you earning the certification hinge on whether or not your testimony lead to the admissibility of the fingerprint evidence? I hope not. I hope it's due to the way that you answered the questions that were proffered and the additional information that you provided that was necessary to effectively and impartially justify your conclusion(s).