CLPEX Chat Board

I have a question about how every other agency but mine is taking proficiency test. My agency makes us treat a Proficiency Test as if it were normal case work i.e. ACE-V is preformed, work sheets are made and reports are generated.
Does anybody else do it this way?
My 1st concern is if ACE-V is performed then the V part would fix or correct any errors that an examiner might make, therefore defeating the whole purpose of taking a proficiency test in the first place.
My 2nd concern is that the test comes in a form that is very unlike any normal case work recieved and then puts undo burden of hardship on the examiners to fit it into normal case worksheets and reports.
How many out there get elims. and suspects labeled as items 1,2,3,4

Lastly my agency is accredited by ASCLD/LAB is out QA person reading the manual correctly , when they state that ASCLD/LAB is making us do proficiency test as if they were normal casework?

Wow , really no one has a problem or opinion on the handleing of the proficency test.
This is right out of ASCLD/LAB Legacy Manual 1.4.3.1
The laboratory should employ technical review, verification and administrative review policies as they are
normally applied to case work. If technical reviews or verifications are not routinely conducted on the majority
of case work examinations, routinely employing these procedures on proficiency tests prior to returning the
tests to the providers does not provide the optimum benefit from this quality assurance process for the
laboratory.

They tell you to verify and then tell you if you do you're not really getting the optimun benefit. All in the same paragraph.
No sh^t
A proficiency test is designed to test an examiners what "proficiency in the field".
How is verifying and then correcting if mistakes are made before a test is sent back to outside agency helping, other then to hide the mistakes before they can become public?

According to ASCLD/LAB "In looking at a 5 year history of PRC interactions with the response on proficency tests, there are only a few erroneous identifications while failures to identify are much more numerous."
What does this tell us; either there are a few agencies that treat these tests as they should and let them TEST their examiners or there are agencies that practice the use of verification on proficiency test and the examiner and the verifier are not qualified to do work in this field since they both made mistakes. Please let it be the 1st option.

A test is a test in should be treated like a TEST. Casework is casework and should be work as such.End of rant.

The proficiency test is not always a test of the examiner so much as a test of the "lab's" proficiency.
And if they are after lab proficiency then having the test go through tech review and verification before sending it out should be done.

Some labs will only buy one copy of the test and have everyone take it but only send the one answer sheet as the "lab's answers." It all depends on how your agency treats the test. This is one reason they warn agaist using CTS tests to come up with an error rate.

ASCLAD is more concerned on how the lab functions as a whole not just the proficiency of the individual examiner.

I do agree with you that they could make the test more like real casework but they do also have to deal with mutiple labs and not every lab does things the same way. The naming of the individuals 1, 2, 3 is probably for scoring more than anything. Kind of hard to fit their whole name in the block on the answer sheet.