IAABO Test Results

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by shavano

Where my "wondering" comes from is in the wording of some of the questions. Is it deliberately designed to "trip one up"? ( i.e. "shall" instead of "could")..

My opinion on this is that the questions are worded that way to determine if the official really knows the definitions or not; really knows when the ball is live or dead; really knows when a 2-10 can be corrected or not.

Anybody can tell you if it's legal to run 4 steps while holding the ball. It's a little tougher to tell whether a player can catch the ball, land on one foot, jump and land on both feet and then lift one foot off the ground again. You have to really know the traveling rule to answer the second one.

I don't think the questions are meant to confuse the test-taker. The people who write the test realize that it's being designed for brand new recruits (as opposed to established officials who frequent this forum). But they need to know whether the test-taker really knows important distinctions. JMHO.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

My opinion on this is that the questions are worded that way to determine if the official really knows the definitions or not; really knows when the ball is live or dead; really knows when a 2-10 can be corrected or not.

Anybody can tell you if it's legal to run 4 steps while holding the ball. It's a little tougher to tell whether a player can catch the ball, land on one foot, jump and land on both feet and then lift one foot off the ground again. You have to really know the traveling rule to answer the second one.

I don't think the questions are meant to confuse the test-taker. The people who write the test realize that it's being designed for brand new recruits (as opposed to established officials who frequent this forum). But they need to know whether the test-taker really knows important distinctions. JMHO.

Agree. It a good test of an official's rule knowledge. I write it every year- refresher and regular both- even though I'm non-IAABO and don't have to. A friend sends them to me. It's part of trying to keep current imo.

Your exam result usually tells you where you are, like it or not.

[shavano]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Your exam result usually tells you where you are, like it or not.

That's a good point, JR, and I agree.

I'm sure that IAABO has their reasons for writing the tests as they do, it just seems a shame that only 20-30% of folks that take it pass it. Then, especially in states like where hoopsref is, someone pays out the money for the books and test, then fails, and gets sent home, sans their investment.

Oh well, onward and upward. 2 MS games tonight....

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by shavano

That's a good point, JR, and I agree.

I'm sure that IAABO has their reasons for writing the tests as they do, it just seems a shame that only 20-30% of folks that take it pass it. Then, especially in states like where hoopsref is, someone pays out the money for the books and test, then fails, and gets sent home, sans their investment.

Oh well, onward and upward. 2 MS games tonight....

I know in VT, a person getting an 80 had a chance to re-take in the spring. But, if someone gets below that, should they be given the responsibility of doing HS games? And should the IAABO chapter re-imburse all that do not pass for the cost of materials? I know it is rough, but studying and learning and knowledge of test taking are all important. For those who do not pass, I am sure they can still go to games and learn.

[Scuba_ref]

Washington is not an IAABO state. Every year we get a copy of the exam and then we go through it in the Association and then everybody takes it online. Doing it that way doesn't let me know where I am in my rules knowledge. I always complete the exam online before we go through it in both football and basketball because I want to know where I stand in regards to rule knowledge. It doesn't do me any good to get a 100% on a test when I have had the answers given to me during a group study session with the test. But that is just me...there are those who just take the answers and call it good.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by shavano

I'm sure that IAABO has their reasons for writing the tests as they do, it just seems a shame that only 20-30% of folks that take it pass it. Then, especially in states like where hoopsref is, someone pays out the money for the books and test, then fails, and gets sent home, sans their investment.

I know of some IAABO boards that are so shorthanded they will use people that fail the written test if they pass an on-court test. And that includes some of their more highly-rated officials. It also includes some areas/associations that write the FED tests. It ain't a perfect world when you've got a ton of games to cover.

[BillyMac]

Are we all talking about the same thing? An IAABO Exam for new officials, or an IAABO Refresher Exam for veterans? Here in the "Constitution State" these are two very different exams.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by shavano

it just seems a shame that only 20-30% of folks that take it pass it.

If you're talking about new recruits passing the Written Exam (50 question test), then they're simply not getting good instruction before taking the exam. My IAABO board regularly has an 80+% passing rate for new recruits, and that's with only 10 hours of class instruction.

If you're talking about existing members taking the Refresher Test, I agree that it's harder and every year there are several vague questions. But it's not that hard. If less than a third of your members can pass that test, somebody needs to set up some serious "continuing ed" programs. I honestly feel bad for the teams in your area.

[shavano]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

If you're talking about new recruits passing the Written Exam (50 question test), then they're simply not getting good instruction before taking the exam. My IAABO board regularly has an 80+% passing rate for new recruits, and that's with only 10 hours of class instruction.

Yes, this is the new recruit Written, not the Refresher. 80%+? Wow! Can you give me some ideas on what you guys are doing to get that kind of success? Do you have class outlines, use video, etc.? I told my association that I would compile a list of ideas so that we can start bucking this trend in our area.

Thanks for the help in advance. Also, if there's any instructors that want to chime in with some of their methods, I'm all eyes.

[26 Year Gap]

I know in VT they have about 10 2 hr classroom sessions before the test is given. They are now using Ref Town to supplement the teaching. Studying old tests or refresher tests is the best way to finish the test preparation. If you fail to study, you study to fail.

[BillyMac]

Here in my little corner of Connecticut we offer twelve hours (eight sessions, ninety minutes each) of group instruction with major emphasis on Rule 4 (Definitions) and Rule 6 (Live Ball and Dead Ball); and moderate emphasis on Rule 7 (Out of Bounds and Throw-in), Rule 8 (Free Throw), Rule 9 (Violations and Penalties), and Rule 10 (Fouls and Penalties). Rule 1 (Court and Equipment), Rule 2 (Officials and Their Duties), with the exception of correctable errors which are covered in detail, Rule 3 (Players, Substitutes and Equipment), and Rule 5 (Scoring and Timing Regulations) get little emphasis, with the instructor, our interpreter, just going over the important sections of these rules.

Reftown is utilized, as are old Refresher Exams. Applicants are given written homework, in the form of questions about each rule, after that rule is covered. They are given the correct answers to these questions at the next session. Individual guidance is offered by training committee members one half hour before, and one half hour after, each of the eight clinic sessions, generally to go over homework questions that the applicants got incorrect.

This year approximately thirty applicants took the exam. Almost all passed (86% correct). Two failed the exam outright. Approximately five did well enough to get a retake later, after the mechanics instruction portion of their training. These numbers really don't compare well to past years. Normally we have no outright failures, and just two, or three, eligible for a retake. I've heard that the exam was very difficult this year, but I can't confirm that since I switched from the rules subcommittee to the mechanics and floor exam subcommittee.

As a retired, thirty plus years, middle school science teacher, I believe that our training committee, under the guidance of our interpreter, does an outstanding job. As 26 Year Gap stated earlier, "If you fail to study, you study to fail." Former players often think that they know all the rules and don't attend all of the training sessions that are offered, or they attend and don't take the instruction that they receive very seriously.