This is a continuation of the previous blog article that discussed the use of performance examinations for certification and licensure.  To summarize the previous blog, performance examinations (i.e., “hands-on”) are expensive to use and maintain. Many certification and licensure authorities have abandoned hands-on performance examinations for some alternative measure of a person’s skills. However, there are situations where the expense and effort are worth the expenditure because of consequences to clients.  Situations where a performance examination may be worth the expense are those where failing to measure an examinee’s performance skills (fine motor) could result in pain or suffering for other people (e.g., patients). 

A renowned American Professor of Measurement and Testing, Robert Ebel, published the following definition of a performance test:

“In a performance test the subject is required to demonstrate his or her skill by manipulating objects or instruments.”

This definition was first published in a measurement textbook in 1965. The definition seems solid, except that evolving technology may have changed the concept of manipulating objects or instruments since the time of publication.  For example, robotic surgery to perform a kidney transplant from a location 7,000 miles away from the patient.  This type of ultra-high speed data transfer and related virtual environment begins to change the concept of manipulating objects or instruments.