Tuesday, April 20, 2010
CRR Exam
In 1996, when I passed my CRR exam, I was thrilled to have passed an exam that was between RPR and RMR literary speed in realtime. Now that the exam has been downgraded to straight 180 wpm, I'm not so sure I think that much of it. I only wish that someone would give their closing argument at 180 wpm while I'm hooked up to four computers in the courtroom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would like to see the CRR have a Q&A component to it. We'd probably have more people interested in taking the CRR.
ReplyDeleteThe CRR seems to be geared toward captioners and CART writers, and while I agree that there needs to be a certification test for those reporters, the majority of reporters in the country are litigation reporters.
So let me get this straight: You want to increase the difficulty of the CRR so that it has an even more miserable pass rate than it has already. Got it.
ReplyDeleteGosh, I'd like anybody talk at 180 or even 200 or sometimes even 220 would be a gift. Does that mean the RPR has as little validity as you appear to be suggesting the CRR does? I'm sure all those that worked hard to get their RPR (and their CRR) are going to appreciate that.
ReplyDeleteThe CRR examination would not necessarily be more difficult if the manner of grading were changed. When one mistroke in one multi-syllabic word can result in multiple errors, we will continue to see our current failure rate. And, Donna, you are correct in that almost no one who isn't circling retirement talks at 180 words a minute these days.
ReplyDeleteY'know, Lisa, I've been chewing on this since you posted it, reading and re-reading it, and I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say, with either comment. Now that I've received two boxes of tests from NCRA to grade and have gone into total immersion on that, I'm even more puzzled about your grading comment. Are you suggesting that NCRA "dumb down" the CRR even MORE by relaxing the grading standard that all of us who have obtained it (whether under the old 180-200 variable or the current 180) by changing that error standard?
ReplyDeleteGranted, so far I'm only grading RPR/RMR and haven't gotten to any CRRs yet, but I can see the same question applying there. I've had RPR Lit/JCs so far where exactly that issue arose, and while the RPR/RMR Error count is slightly different from the CRR Error count, what I had in the RPRs I'm talking about resulted, still, in 2 errors (one of them would have been 3 in the CRR standard.)
And your last sentence, I have no clue what you mean by that. My point was that I felt that Bruce was "dissing" all CRRs AND RPRs by his comment about how fast people speak in real life. Like, therefore, the tests at 180 and even 200 have no validity and all of us who hold those certs might as well go crawl into a corner and hang our heads in shame.
MY point is: So what? These are global standards that we all test to, vetted and double-vetted and accepted, and are stepping stones to higher certification. Testing is in no way like the real world. We all know that. (And frankly, if more test candidates would realize that before they waltz into the test room with absolutely no preparation at all, the pass rate on ALL tests would be higher.)
It's amazing sometimes how people try to put words in someone else's mouth. What I said was that I wasn't so sure I thought that much of it now that it has been downgraded. You go look above and see that that's exactly what I said, Donna. I wasn't dissing anyone. All I want is for it to be put back where it originally was. There has been no increase of appreciable numbers of CRRs since the speed has been dropped to 180, so why not put it back where it belongs. The CRR exam is not an entry level exam, or at least it was never meant to be. I know because I was around when it first came out. Perhaps, Donna, that's what you're missing, the history of it all. There are still just a little over 2,000 CRRs in the country, and we need more than that.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the grading is concerned, I argued with the captioners until I was blue in the face that a three-stroke untranslate written for one word should be counted as one error, but I was overruled mainly because there were mostly captioners on the Realtime Committee at the time. My argument was that if you simply left the word out, it would only be one error. But the captioners were more arguing that a deaf or hard of hearing person would have trouble reading through the untranslate. And I argued that I was not a captioner. Now they have tests more designed for captioners and CART writers.
Donna, if the CRR were given at the former variable speed of 180-200, or even 200, for that matter, and the grading scheme were altered somewhat, the exam would not necessarily be more difficult but would be more reflective of real world circumstances. As far as my last sentence, I think I was agreeing with you, while merely making an observation that older people generally talk slower than younger people.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to have to post this in, (hah!) "legs" 'cause I've got a lot to say and it's too long for your blog's acceptance...
ReplyDeletePart 1:
"What I said was that I wasn't so sure I thought that much of it now that it has been downgraded. You go look above and see that that's exactly what I said, Donna. I wasn't dissing anyone. All I want is for it to be put back where it originally was."
I don't need to go back and look since you just said basically the same thing. So "I'm not so sure I think that much of it now that it has been downgraded" isn't intended to diminish the credentials of those who have attained it since the downgrade. (translation, "diss.")
I don't know how it could be taken any other way. The way I read it, it was once a certification you respected, and now it no longer MAY be worthy of that respect. It's a distinction without a difference.
I'll give you that I took the next logical step in processing that comment and took it to the RPR, which has also been "downgraded," because now you can take it in legs, and I know there are many who wish it would "go back to the way it was/the way it should be." I'll give you that you didn't actually say that, but it's the exact same concept.
"There has been no increase of appreciable numbers of CRRs since the speed has been dropped to 180, so why not put it back where it belongs."
"Where it belongs" being where it was originally, which YOU think is where it belongs, but reasonable minds differed, and you disagree, so they're wrong.
I don't have the stats, but I'll wager that the same is true of the legged-RPR pass rate. Should we go back to "the way it should be" too? ("the way it should be by whose standard/opinion.)
And again, I know you didn't refer to the RPR in your comments, but I don't see any difference between the two.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteOh, and by the way, I can remember back when my mom and dad took the RPR and RMR (then the newly minted CP and CM,) you could take them both on the same day. That too was changed.
Change Happens, Bruce… should we go back to that as well? I’m thinking that was vintage early ‘70s.
"The CRR exam is not an entry level exam, or at least it was never meant to be."
Entry-level in terms of having taken the test, under either standard, and shown basic competence at what we both have to agree is a relatively low speed – before and now. Because Testing, any kind of Testing, doesn't remotely resemble the real world, and even if somebody got the CRR with 100% under the old standard, they still have plenty of way to go to provide the same parallel "score" in the real world, every day, every time, every sentence.
I'm sure there are those out there - no, I know there are, because I've read their posts over the years - that argued that the 180-200 variable CRR was "entry level," and that we should have another level of CRR at higher, more realistic speeds (such as we have the RPR being "entry level" to open the door to the RMR.)
"I know because I was around when it first came out. Perhaps, Donna, that's what you're missing, the history of it all." "As far as the grading is concerned, I argued with the captioners until I was blue in the face that a three-stroke untranslate written for one word should be counted as one error, but I was overruled mainly because there were mostly captioners on the Realtime Committee at the time."
I'm not missing a thing, Bruce. As a CE and a grader, I completely agree with the current grading standard on the error count. But more important than either of our opinions on the subject, everybody knows, or should know, as they go in, that grading standard, and they're all being graded under the same standard, and should be prepared for it with practice and dix maintenance, the ability to control-drop, and wordbuilding skills at speeds that will give them a comfort level in the stress of the test environment. If the test were unfair or meaningless or too easy or too hard, either everybody would pass it or nobody would pass it.
By the way, you're saying two very different things here:
"My argument was that if you simply left the word out, it would only be one error."
Leaving the word out is, yes, one error. (and if done intentionally and skillfully, it’s the controlled drop I mentioned, which is a very important test-taking skill.)
"But the captioners were more arguing that a deaf or hard of hearing person would have trouble reading through the untranslate.”
That is a very different thing. In the first instance, "leaving the word out," is indeed smart test strategy: 1 error. Then you're talking about "reading through the untranslate," (assumedly a multistroke untranslate.) That's that the testee tried but didn't get it, and resulted in several strokes of either slop or wrong trans of word parts. And indeed, that is, and should be, in MY opinion, "3 errors" (or whatever # of errors.)
Part 3:
ReplyDelete"Now they have tests more designed for captioners and CART writers."
Ummmmm... I'm sitting here with a load of tests to grade, as well as being a CE on test day. I'd swear that the dictation test for the CBC and CCP is identical to that for the CRR, with the difference being that the CBC and CCP have an additional WKT component. Maybe I'm wrong and I've just never had the opportunity to administer the test for CBC or CCP at my site, or to grade a CBC or CCP.
Let me check... No, I'm right. At least according to the NCRA Cert web site. Let me check something else; I'm pretty sure I saw a CBC test in my stacks here to grade...
Yeah, it's the same dictation, exactly. One more thing to look at...
Nope, no difference on the What Is An Error distinguishing between the three classifications.
So... HUH????
"There are still just a little over 2,000 CRRs in the country, and we need more than that."
That is a point that I agree with you 100% on. And to get there, we need more people to pass the RPR, because you can't take the CRR until you have your RPR.
And so we get back to my earlier point, which I think was in an answer to Lisa's post, about "dismal pass rates," on both tests.
I can remember when the pass announcements went for page after page after page in the JCR. (See, I've been "around" a while too, Bruce; heck, I’ve been reading mom’s and dad’s JCRs since I was 13. Let’s just not talk about what year THAT was.) Now we're lucky if they fill three full columns on one page - for all certs combined. Even after the tests have been “downgraded,” the RPR split out so you could pass it in legs like the RMR has always been; and the CRR/CBC/CCP went from the 180-200 variable to the 180 constant.
Why?
I'll submit that it's because of two basic reasons:
1, It's tied into the low grad rate from court reporting schools, which I believe is then tied directly to workin with a generation that did not get the solid basic education in English grammar and spelling that previous generations had. (can’t tell you how many their/there red marks I’m having to put on these RPR tests I’m grading…)
2, The simple fact that people waltz into the test room, time after time, completely unprepared.
And there's not a darned thing that NCRA can do about either thing. And pulling down the standards even further, or putting them "back where they should be" by your standard, isn't going to change that stat one iota.
“Donna, if the CRR were given at the former variable speed of 180-200, or even 200, for that matter, and the grading scheme were altered somewhat, the exam would not necessarily be more difficult but would be more reflective of real world circumstances.”
ReplyDeleteThat’s what I kind of thought you were saying, Lisa, but since when has testing ever been designed to reflect “real world circumstances”? It can’t possibly, unless you take a recording from the real world, with all its burps and farts, and use that as the test. Even the most challenging test – even the speed competition at its highest levels – doesn’t reflect “real world circumstances.” Because I’ve sure never heard anybody speak at a sustained speed for five minutes, any speed, from the slowest to the fastest. There’s always a few pauses for breath, to gather one’s thoughts; a spurt of speed as they rush to the finish line or are excited; a thoughtful shuffling through a document to find something to refresh one’s memory… All testing is is a benchmark to a certain agreed-upon standard to attain a level and possibly make you eligible for another level.
For the rest, see my thesis on testing in response to Bruce.
I have to admit, Bruce: You got me thinking. So since I'm deeply in the throes of grading as we speak, I decided to try a little experiment to test your theory. I graded a random batch of CRRs under the CRR grading rules, and then I went back and backed out the number of errors that would have been only 1 error instead of multiple errors under your concept (although I strongly disagree that that is the RPR/RMR standard, but I'm giving you that one anyway.)
ReplyDeleteAnd I was very liberal in my back-out count. Exmples are, EMPLOY HE IS, which is 3 CRR errors; it would have been 3 RPR/RMR errors too, but I gave it 1 error for purposes of this analysis. Another example was APAREN, whcih should have been "a presenter," and I gave it 1 error for this.
There were 6 tests in this site's batch.
The results made absolutely no difference in the outcome at all. Most of the tests, I graded well past the cut-off point of 51 so as to be excruciatingly fair, but I graded only one test to completion.
The CRR scores ranged from 63+ to 80+ (the + meaning they were not graded to the end.) The MOST that I was able to back out for the RPR/RMR standard, even under the most liberal interpretation, was 12, on the 80+ test, resulting in a "RPR/RMR" score of 68+ instead of the CRR score of 80+.
Now, how about my theory: That (total wild-assed guess figure) 90% of the CRR test candidates are completely unprepared to sit for the test, both in their dictionary building, realtime writing skills; as well as in the fact that they don't practice. Heck, I'll give you 10% for the true cases of "test nerves," so say 80%.
And *if* I'm right, and *if) your aspirations pan out, as an officer on the BOD of NCRA, what would you propose to do about it? How would you get more people to attain the CRR? (Aside from changing the scoring method.)