Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
      • JNMT Supplement
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • Continuing Education
    • JNMT Podcast
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • Continuing Education
    • JNMT Podcast
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Watch or Listen to JNMT Podcast
  • Visit SNMMI on Facebook
  • Join SNMMI on LinkedIn
  • Follow SNMMI on Twitter
  • Subscribe to JNMT RSS feeds
OtherDEPARTMENTS

NMTCB Report

Ellen Thomas
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology September 2001, 29 (3) 163;
Ellen Thomas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Embedded Image

The first administration of the specialty exam in nuclear cardiology technology occurred at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine in Toronto. Fifty-eight examinees sat for the exam, which was given in 2 separate administrations using 2 forms of the exam. The examinees were allotted 2 hours to complete the test, which consisted of 125 items. Twenty-five of the items were pre-test and were not considered in the scoring of the exam. The use of pre-test items allows for analysis of data on those items, which may then be used in future forms of the exam if they prove to be acceptable in terms of performance.

Certification as a nuclear medicine technologist is granted if an individual successfully completes a test of professional knowledge and the examinee’s score equals or exceeds a specific cutoff score. Such is the case for the specialty exam in nuclear cardiology technology as well. When a new exam is instituted, the certifying body must decide the cutoff score using one of a number of accepted methods for determining the level of performance that demonstrates competency. There are 3 general approaches to what is commonly called “standard setting.” One approach is to have a panel of experts review the exam content in its entirety and make a judgment about the overall difficulty of the exam. The second approach involves judgments made by a panel of experts looking at the content of each exam item individually in order to determine the overall difficulty. The third approach is to base the cutoff score on the observed scores of the examinees. The NMTCB chose to use the second approach, also known as the Angoff method.

A panel of 13 judges was assembled and trained on how to use the Angoff cut–score method. For the Angoff method, the judges were instructed to think of a group of minimally qualified persons and to estimate, for each item, the percentage of examinees who would answer the item correctly. In the case of the nuclear cardiology exam, a minimally qualified person would be a certified technologist with 2 years of clinical experience. Bearing that in mind, each judge went through the entire exam and looked at each item as a whole to determine the probability that a minimally qualified examinee would answer it correctly. Following that process, the exam items were reviewed by the entire panel and the judges were allowed to alter their judgment on items after discussion. The probabilities were summed over all items for each judge. The consensus of all of the judges’ ratings determined the minimum passing score for the exam based on the estimated difficulty.

Using a method such as the Angoff method allows for assessment of the level of difficulty for each item, as opposed to the holistic approach, which bases the cutoff score on the overall impression of the exam. The cutoff score was determined without knowledge of the performance of the group. One way to assess the reliability of the cut– score, however, is to compare the panel’s decision to the actual difficulty as determined from the observed scores of examinees. Item difficulty indicates the percentage of individuals who answered the item correctly and is reported in decimal form from 0.00 to 1.00. The estimation of the exam’s average item difficulty provided by the Angoff data was 0.68. The observed average item difficulty, calculated from the examinees’ actual responses, was 0.681. The high correlation indicates that the panel did an excellent job of estimating the difficulty of the exam using the Angoff method. Both the Angoff data and the observed data indicated that the cutoff score should be approximately 68%. The range of scores on the exam was 51%–89%, with a mean score of 69%.

Over the next few weeks, more analyses will be performed on the data from the exam before the official results are reported to the candidates. Congratulations to those who are among the first technologists with NCT credentials. The Board has received a great deal of feedback from the examinees, with the consensus being that the nuclear cardiology technology exam is not one that an individual can pass without properly preparing for it. At the Fall NMTCB meeting, the Board will make some decisions concerning how often and where the exam will be offered. As always, we invite your input. Call the NMTCB office at (404) 315-1739 or e-mail the Board at board{at}nmtcb.org with any questions or feedback.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology: 29 (3)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
Vol. 29, Issue 3
September 1, 2001
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
NMTCB Report
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology web site.
Citation Tools
NMTCB Report
Ellen Thomas
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Sep 2001, 29 (3) 163;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
NMTCB Report
Ellen Thomas
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Sep 2001, 29 (3) 163;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Technologist News
  • Moving into 2024 and Our Future
  • Outstanding JNMT Articles for 2022
Show more DEPARTMENTS

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire