Page 87 - 2020 Annual Reports Book updated1_Neat

to participate whether through serving as a Subject Matter Expert (SME), as a member of a Subject
Matter Expert Resource Panel (SRP), or referring someone to serve in either capacity.

Expanded, two-level panel structure: The Subject Matter Expert Resource Panel (SRP). Whereas prior
committees may have performed all test development tasks for purposes of continuity, the fixed-panel
model has been changed to garner participation from Subject Matter Expert Resource Panels that
extend beyond the fixed-number committee structure. In addition to a minimum size of eight appointed
SMEs per primary committee, the SME panel structure has been expanded to include participants
betted for specific test development tasks. A roster of eligible SMEs is therefore maintained to address
discrete test development activities. A member of the Resource Panel may be, for example, an item
writer, an entry-level certificant selected to provide input as a test development meeting, an individual
selected by means of a special expertise to provide focus-group input into the development of task
inventories, an individual selected to participate in particular standard-setting studies, an individual
consulted to validate items for examinee content challenges, or any other qualified individual that
would augment input from the field with respect to test development tasks. In addition, SRP panelists
may be engaged at any time to participate in meetings, as requisite committee tasks dictate. SRP
panelists may furthermore move to, or from, primary appointed panels to ensure rotation of
representative expert input over time. There is no fixed size or size limitation for any given SRP,
although maintaining a roster that is corresponding in size with that of a primary committee is
facilitative. The expansion of involvement to additional SMEs not only increases representativeness of
input but also ensures that a single group of individuals comprising a panel is not responsible for all test
development tasks. A SME panel structure that consists of both a fixed panel plus a larger pool of SMEs
from which to draw expertise provides a system of ensuring varied input and further allows for the
rotation of SMEs over time. Furthermore, in the preservation of quorums, members of the Resource
Panel can serve as alternates in cases where a member of the primary committee may be unable to
participate in a given activity or unable to attend a particular meeting.

I encourage each of you to consider filling out the Subject Matter Expert Panel and Committee
Participant Interest Form attached to this report or giving it to a colleague that would be interested in
serving as an SME or SRP. We need new certificants as well as those that have been practicing in their
respective fields for a number of years participating on the committees/panels. There are AMT
members as well as non-members that participate on these committees. Please forward the form along
with the required resume, or direct inquiries to: SME@americanmedtech.org.

Candidate Incident

It seems we had better behaved candidates this year as this was the only case that rose to the EQS
Committee for review. An RPT candidate disregarded the “All forms of electronic devices are strictly
prohibited” portion of AMT’s Validity Assurance and Score Cancellation Policy which a candidate must
acknowledge when applying for any certification examination. The candidate failed to acknowledge the
Non-disclosure Agreement (NDA) on the testing screen within the required time specified and the test
automatically terminated. The candidate claimed no knowledge that failing to respond to the NDA
within the timeframe allowed would terminate the session before the exam began. The candidate was
reminded by the Pearson testing administrator that the candidate was given the Professional &
Regulatory Candidate Rules Agreement upon arrival and that it clearly explains that failure to agree to
the NDA will prevent a candidate from taking the test. The candidate was also reminded that these
terms were agreed to when the candidate provided an electronic signature during admissions.

84