Regional Certification Exams:
The Good, the bad and the ugly
An experiment to ascertain the
feasibility of developing a common
exam for EPA Region 5
The Plan
Propose the plan to EPA and the
participating states
 Secure money for travel expenses and
survey costs from EPA
 Make arrangements, secure participants
and communicate
 Actual cost was $48,000.

Proposal to EPA

Proposal was made in January 2002
to…
Identify validate and create an exam item
bank in the general pest control category
that will satisfy the needs of all EPA Region
5 states participating in the project.
 Produce a job analysis
 Produce a test blueprint
 Provide an item writing training session for
the participants

Proposal to EPA (cont)

Additional projected outcomes….
Produce an item bank of questions for this
category
 Provide validation for the test blueprint and
subject matter content
 Identify similarities & differences between
the EPA Region 5 states general pest
control category

Participants

5 of the 6 Region 5 states participated


Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio & Wisconsin
1 SLA, 1 CES & 3 industry leaders from
each state

C&T Members included: Phil Nixon, Fred
Riecks, Carl Rew, Carolyn Randall, Larry
Swain, Joanne Kick-Raack, Diana Roll,
Anne Parrish, Steve Tomasko
Job Analysis Meeting
October 3-4, 2002 in Indianapolis
 Discussed the different category and
licensing procedures in each state.
 Committee reviewed all tasks submitted
for inclusion in common Region 5 job.
 Accepted 191 common tasks for
inclusion in the identified general pest
control category

Survey Preparation and Mailing
Survey was prepared and sent to each
committee member for review
 Received cover letters from each state
SLA to mail with the surveys
 Mailed a total of 2,000 surveys to
certified applicators in each participating
state. (There were a total of
approximately 10,000 applicators to
select from)

Returns (658 OF 2,000 = 32.9%)
State Mailed Undelivered Returned Percentage
IL
423
14
142
33.6%
IN
232
2
111
47.8%
MI
402
30
108
26.9%
OH
614
25
240
39.1%
WI
329
87
57
17.3%
Exam Blueprint Meeting
Survey results were reviewed in detail
 5 major categories
 13 sub categories
 162 task items identified as common
items in all EPA Region 5 states

Item Writing to Exam Blueprint
Item writing principles explained
 Items submitted from participating states
reviewed and modified
 Not enough time was allowed to review
all items and develop new items for each
of the 162 tasks identified

Project Results

There is definitely a common job description
for Region 5
 The pests, application practices, IPM
principles and pesticides used are common
amongst the five EPA Region 5 states
 The most difficult hurdles are the different laws
and practices each state has put into place to
train, license and regulate these applicators
Additional Issues
Illinois PC Association had politicians
pass law to forbid the regional exam
from being used in Illinois (It became
political)
 A regional study manual is needed but
state ownership becomes an issue
 Wisconsin must sell a manual to each
candidate getting licensed by law

Additional Issues





Exam does not exactly fit the current category
definition in each state
Ohio has split their categories into many
Michigan category includes vertebrate animals
in their category 7
Illinois allows for business licenses to be
issued by passing the core exam only.
In Illinois the category exam is required only if
using RUP’s
Conclusion

Regional or national certification and licensing
laws need to be put into place if this regional
process is to become feasible
 Funding for pesticide applicator exam
development, certification, licensing, standard
setting and training must be allocated
specifically for this process rather than state’s
money.
 Political interference cannot be allowed