1. CTAG National Exam Validation Committee

2. Committee Members Margaret Tucker (WA Dept. of Ag) Margaret Tucker (WA Dept. of Ag) Tim Drake (Clemson Department of Pesticide Regulation, SC) Tim Drake (Clemson Department of Pesticide Regulation, SC) Drew Martin (Indiana Extension, Purdue) Drew Martin (Indiana Extension, Purdue) Dean Herzfeld (MN Extension) Dean Herzfeld (MN Extension) Dan Wixted (NY Extension, Cornell) Dan Wixted (NY Extension, Cornell) Ron Gardner (NY Extension, Cornell) Ron Gardner (NY Extension, Cornell) Michelle Devaux (EPA C&T) Michelle Devaux (EPA C&T) Clyde Ogg (Nebraska Extension) Clyde Ogg (Nebraska Extension) John Scott (Colorado Dept. of Ag.) John Scott (Colorado Dept. of Ag.)

3. Objective Developing Effective, Integrated Pesticide Training Manual and Certification Examinations Developing Effective, Integrated Pesticide Training Manual and Certification Examinations Look at the elements of creating pesticide applicator study manuals and examinations and then providing CTAG with a document for consideration on a framework to do so Look at the elements of creating pesticide applicator study manuals and examinations and then providing CTAG with a document for consideration on a framework to do so

4. Criteria Develop a framework, of these core requirements, for developing effective, content relevant credentialing exams and corresponding study manuals Develop a framework, of these core requirements, for developing effective, content relevant credentialing exams and corresponding study manuals

5. Criteria Provide an outline of what steps are needed to achieve success Provide an outline of what steps are needed to achieve success This “concept” document would define terms and discuss streamlined methods This “concept” document would define terms and discuss streamlined methods SME committees, task analysis SME committees, task analysis

6. Criteria Encourage States to use “core requirements” when developing their materials, while giving flexible solutions to barriers States may face Encourage States to use “core requirements” when developing their materials, while giving flexible solutions to barriers States may face

7. Discussion Consensus: manuals and exams should be developed in tandem Consensus: manuals and exams should be developed in tandem Link – job analysis Link – job analysis

8. Manual criteria Answers to test items found or inferred in manual Answers to test items found or inferred in manual Must facilitate learning and test preparation Must facilitate learning and test preparation Learning objectives Learning objectives Learner orientation (what the reader should learn from the objectives) Learner orientation (what the reader should learn from the objectives) Short, topic-specific chapters Short, topic-specific chapters Review by SME Review by SME Readability Readability SLA & PSEP cooperation SLA & PSEP cooperation

9. Exam – Core Requirements Job analysis Job analysis Test plan Test plan Item writing Item writing Assembly Assembly Item analysis Item analysis Setting standards (pass/fail) Setting standards (pass/fail) Validation Validation

10. Barriers document Suggested solutions to barriers of creating defensible exams and manuals Suggested solutions to barriers of creating defensible exams and manuals Cost of development Cost of development Flexible framework that States could use to meet core “development” requirements Flexible framework that States could use to meet core “development” requirements Creating quality exams while considering funding and resources Creating quality exams while considering funding and resources Modification of current manuals and exams over time Modification of current manuals and exams over time

11. Barriers Consideration of learning styles Consideration of learning styles Importance of State to Extension cooperation Importance of State to Extension cooperation Importance of State to State cooperation Importance of State to State cooperation How to address regional differences How to address regional differences Future PESP funding? Future PESP funding?

12. Thank you