[QUOTE=Nevadaref]There is an art to taking these tests. You have to figure out what point the testwriter is trying to get across. QUOTE]

Which makes it a poorly written test.:mad:

LOL.. Trust me.. on the floor I get the call right. The games are not played in words. ;)

Took the test last night - frustrating. Obviously, I have not mastered the "art" of taking the test. Knew the rules better than last yr (thanks to this site and the books).

Know the rules, yes. Trip you up, why? :(

Terms like "may", "always", "will", "should" are purposely made for confusion - IMO.

PS - I'm sure I did just fine!

Yes.. they open it up to interpretation. The rules should be absolute.

Is the 3-second violation "absolute"? Is determining whether contact is a foul "absolute"? Is when to call a T "absolute"?

There are a lot of things in basketball that are based on interpretation. I suppose they are just trying to get you to think about the question and the rule(s) behind it so you have a better understanding overall. Even knowing the difference between the words "may" and "shall" can help you understand what they are trying to convey. "Shall" you call a 3-sec. violation every time an offensive player is in the lane for more than 3 seconds? Or "may" an official call that violation, (if certain conditions are met)?

No, they are not made for confusion...they're to see if you REALLY know the rule.

If it says "never/always", look for an exception. If you can find one, it's false. Those are the easy ones.

If it says "may"...it is asking if they are allowed to do something...not required, but allowed.

If it says "shall", it is a requirment. If it is not required, this would be false.

Really, it comes down to knowing things that are always/never versus things that have exceptions and knowing what is optional/permitted versus required. Those are exactly the things the test is trying to detemrine. Once you know those, making a rules-based call on a play becomes easy.

Test-taking should never be an art. Matter of fact, for fun, I submitted one of the tests from the NF (won't say which one or which sport) to our "quality test monitoring" task force here at work. They couldn't believe I had to take such a piss-poorly written test three times a year (football, basketball, and track) on an annual basis. I then took their astonishment to write better tests for the classes I teach. Thanks to the Fed, I'm a better test-writer! :D

If you don't know the subject matter, how can you tell whether a test is poorly written?

In my experience (and I'm not picking on anyone in specific here, and there are plenty of excpetions), those who complain about the test *generally* only want a high score (that is, they want the answers). Those who take the test as a learning experience and research the answers *generally* don't complain about the test.

Yes, there are a few questions each year that could be better. But, since no one requires 100% (afaik), those generally don't affect the results.

I can assure you I'm not digging for the answers. If I wanted just the answers I would have gotten them. It was offered to me, I declined.

"There are no horrible questions..."

...only horrible people who ask questions.

What kind of questions are we talking about?

Exactly.

<font size ="1">(Hey...wait a minute...)</font size>

I don't know, bob. I always have a lot of problems with the test, and when I go over the results, I find that there are one or two questions for which I was honestly mistaken about the rule. The others that I get wrong are situations where I simply didn't understand what they were asking. Everyone always says, "Don't read anything into it." and "You're thinking too much". But I don't find that advice even remotely helpful. And I know there are other people who have the same kinds of issues.

An example is a question that baffled me a couple of years ago. It said something to the effect that the official was ready to give the ball to the inbounding team, but there was no player ready, so the official utilized the resuming play procedure to get the game started. It was supposed to be false. I put true, because I just figured the resuming play procedure meant putting the ball down on the floor and beginning the count. Silly me. What they meant by resuming play procedure was "something listed under the title 'Resuming Play Procedure'" rather than meaning the actions that lie behind those words. In a real game, I would have handled that situation exactly correctly, I just wasn't using the correct wording on the test.

That particular difficulty has been "fixed" now, with the committee ruling that that situation has been added to the "Resuming Play Procedure."

But other types of misunderstandings arise every year. I find the whole situation very, very frustrating.