 |
Exam Specifications
The examination for each level of certification is
composed of multiple choice questions drawn from the KSAs found in the
7th Edition of ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and
Prescription. Each level of certification includes "trial"
questions that are being tested for use in future examinations. These
trial questions are randomly distributed throughout the exam and will
not be counted in the final results.
Due to the different KSAs required for each
credential, each credential has a different number of questions and
allotted exam time.
Credential Level
|
Operational
(scored)
questions
|
Experimental
(non-scored)
questions
|
Total
Questions
|
Time
Limit
|
| ACSM Certified Personal TrainerSM |
125-150 |
0-25 |
125-150 |
2.5 hours |
| ACSM Health/Fitness Instructor® |
100-125 |
15-25 |
115-150 |
3.5 hours |
| ACSM Exercise Specialist® |
100-135 |
15-35 |
115-170 |
3.5 hours |
| ACSM Registered Clinical Exercise Physiologist® |
125-150 |
15-25 |
140-175 |
3 hours |
Exam Blue Prints
The approximate distribution of exam questions across
each KSA competency area for each ACSM certification exam is as
follows:
KSAs Competency Area
|
Certified Personal TrainerSM
|
|
Exercise
Prescription (Training) and Programming
|
28%
|
|
Exercise
Physiology and Related Exercise Science
|
24%
|
|
Health
Appraisal and Fitness Exercise Testing
|
13%
|
|
Clinical and
Medical Considerations
|
10%
|
|
Nutrition and
Weight Management
|
9%
|
|
Safety, Injury
Prevention and Emergency Procedures
|
8%
|
|
Human
Behavior
|
4%
|
|
Program
Administration, Quality Assurance, and Outcome Assessment
|
4%
|
KSAs Competency Area
|
Health Fitness Instructor®
|
|
Exercise
Prescription and Programming
|
31%
|
|
Exercise
Physiology and Related Exercise Science
|
23%
|
|
Health
Appraisal and Fitness Exercise Testing
|
12%
|
|
Nutrition and
Weight Management
|
8%
|
|
Program
Administration, Quality Assurance, and Outcome Assessment
|
8%
|
|
Safety, Injury
Prevention and Emergency Procedures
|
7%
|
|
Pathophysiology
and Risk Factors
|
5%
|
|
Human
Behavior
|
4%
|
|
Electrocardiography and Diagnostic Techniques
|
1%
|
|
Medical and
Surgical Management
|
1%
|
|
|
|
KSAs Competency Area
|
Exercise Specialist®
|
|
Health
Appraisal and Fitness Exercise Testing
|
26%
|
|
Exercise
Prescription (Training) and Programming
|
19%
|
|
Electrocardiography and Diagnostic Techniques
|
17%
|
|
Exercise
Physiology and Related Exercise Science
|
10%
|
|
Pathophysiology
and Risk Factors
|
10%
|
|
Human
Behavior
|
5%
|
|
Safety, Injury
Prevention and Emergency Procedures
|
5%
|
|
Nutrition and
Weight Management
|
2%
|
|
Patient
Management and Medications
|
2%
|
|
Program
Administration, Quality Assurance, and Outcome Assessment
|
2%
|
|
Medical and
Surgical Management
|
2%
|
KSAs Competency Area
|
Registered Clinical Exercise
Physiologist®
|
|
Health
Appraisal, Fitness and Clinical Exercise Testing
|
25%
|
|
Exercise
Prescription and Programming
|
21%
|
|
Exercise
Physiology and Related Exercise Science
|
19%
|
|
Medical and
Surgical Management
|
13%
|
|
Pathophysiology
and Risk Factors
|
9%
|
|
Human
Behavior
|
5%
|
|
Safety, Injury
Prevention, and Emergency Procedures
|
4%
|
|
Program
Administration, Quality Assurance and Outcome Assessment
|
4%
|
Note: Percentages are approximate values
Exam
Development and Implementation
The Job Task
Task Analysis
ACSM CCRB
certification examinations are comprised of a variety of conventional
and innovative item types that are created with reference to a specified
body of knowledge (KSA's). When the techniques or methods used in
practice change, this body of knowledge changes too. Periodic
evaluation of this body of knowledge occurs via a Job Task Analysis
(JTA), or a Role Delineation Study. Typically, a large,
representative sample of the professional population and/or panel of
subject matter experts are asked to evaluate and potentially revise
KSA's, as well as recommend new KSA's based on emerging trends in daily
practice. Part of this process involves determining the
criticality of each KSA by ranking its importance and frequency of
application or recall in a typical daily, weekly or monthly work.
By conducting a JTA according to widely-accepted best practices, the
resulting examination stays current, relevant, and valid. It is
important to recognize that the outcome of this emphasis on validity is
to make appropriate decisions about the results of the candidates who
take the exams.
Exam Item
Writing
The ACSM CCRB
certification exams are developed according to specifications and
administered according to specific procedures. As the exams are
developed, test questions are selected for exams according to a level of
difficulty. For example, we want an exam that is made up of test
questions that will provide a fair measure of candidates' abilities
before earning the credential. We make sure that all of the topics
in the body of knowledge are represented by test questions ranging from
easy to difficult. Item writers receive comprehensive item writing
training, and we review and edit all test questions to be sure the
questions are consistent with widely accepted best practices regarding
item writing guidelines. We intend that each test question will
help to discriminate between those who should pass the test from those
who should not. Items are either operational (scored) or
experimental (non-scored). For all exams, a majority of test items
are scored and other are non-scored. Both overall exam performance
and individual item performance is evaluated periodically, to ensure
that each of the test questions is performing for us in the way we
want. If an operational (scored) test question is not performing
to our specifications, then we will schedule to replace that test
question in future versions of the exam. Experimental items that
meet or exceed our specifications are converted to scored items, as
appropriate, in future versions of the exams.
Performance
Assessment
The ACSM CCRB
has Credentialing Groups (CG), made up of subject matter experts,
stakeholders, practitioners and leadership, to provide specific
oversight for each credential. The CG's meet at least twice per
year, and are in-touch via email and conference calls periodically
throughout the year. At the regularly scheduled meetings, the CG's
review all the item data available from recent exam
administrations. The CG's also review a report provided by the
consulting psychometrician as to the overall performance on the exams,
the passing rates, and item statistics on item performance for all
candidates and first time test takers. The CG's review
experimental/pre-tested items that are outside of statistical criteria
range of .5-.9 difficulty and/or are negatively discriminating
items.
Other reasons
for item review is to correct flaws or to consider revisions based on
item performance that fall above or below the previously mentioned
range. All of these items are reviewed and the CG's may re-write
the item to increase or decrease difficulty based on item writing
training, correct contextual flaws, or reject the item entirely.
Items are also reviewed/created based on needs to increase the item
inventory by content area (and/or by specific KSA) of the exam.
The goal is to develop and enhance the item pool by administering items
with reliable statistical data within a set of range of about .5-.9
difficulty and positive discrimination, since the items within this
range around the passing score will be most discriminating and efficient
for our purposes of certification testing. In addition, the item
writers and reviewers are looking to craft items at a higher taxonomic
order than just recall and are trained in how to create such
items. Again, the intent is to build a robust item pool with more
discriminating items and the higher order items (beyond recall) are more
likely to assist to fulfill this goal.
This process
of continuous evaluation and revision is intended to improve our
reliability and minimize the error in the exam, and to ensure that the
various exam forms have equivalent difficulty. We us statistical
procedures (such as correlations, bi-serials) to determine degrees of
reliability and how much error may be associated with each score
(standard error of the mean) as well as across the entire exam (standard
error measurement). By the use of systematic procedures for item
development, test development, test administration, and scoring, we
increase our level of confidence in the process and can assure the
profession at large that our exams are defensible, reliable, and
valid.
|
 |