ML080170194: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML080170194
| number = ML080170194
| issue date = 01/17/2008
| issue date = 01/17/2008
| title = Waterford, Appendix F - Region Iv Written Examination Outline Quality Review Matrix
| title = Appendix F - Region IV Written Examination Outline Quality Review Matrix
| author name =  
| author name =  
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-IV
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-IV
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:- Page 1 -APPENDIX F - REGION IV WRITTEN EXAMINATION OUTLINE QUALITY REVIEW MATRIXReview Performed by G. Apger (9/12/07)
{{#Wiki_filter:APPENDIX F - REGION IV WRITTEN EXAMINATION OUTLINE QUALITY REVIEW MATRIX Review Performed by G. Apger (9/12/07)
Q#1.LOK (F/H)2.LOD (1-5)3. Psychometric Errors4. Job Content Errors5.
: 1. 2.        3. Psychometric Errors            4. Job Content Errors      5.                          6.
U/E/S 6.Explanation(See below for instructions)
Q#   LOK LOD                                                                                            Explanation (F/H (1-5)                                                                 U/E/S           (See below for instructions)
StemFocus Direct L/U One Ans Min Resp Scope (TS?)Job-Link Minu-tia SROOnly Back-wards See Comments in column#6SGeneric K/A 2.4.30 was listed as rejected due to being less than 2.5 for RO. This is contrary to methodology outlined in the
Stem Direct One      Min    Scope Job- Minu-      SRO  Back-
 
            )
selection process description.While Tier 3 items are specifically identified as not eligible to be pre-screened out, they may be rejected if justified on a case-by-case
Focus  L/U Ans     Resp   (TS?) Link       tia   Only  wards See                                                                                 S  Generic K/A 2.4.30 was listed as rejected Comments                                                                                    due to being less than 2.5 for RO. This is in column                                                                                  contrary to methodology outlined in the
 
    #6                                                                                      selection process description.
basis: ES401 Att.2 See Comments in column#6SWhile the specific K/As are different, it was noted that repeat APE items in Tier 2 Group 1 are very similar to those repeat items in another facility's exam outline which was
While Tier 3 items are specifically identified as not eligible to be pre-screened out, they may be rejected if justified on a case-by-case basis: ES401 Att.2 See                                                                                 S  While the specific K/As are different, it was Comments                                                                                    noted that repeat APE items in Tier 2 Group in column                                                                                  1 are very similar to those repeat items in
 
    #6                                                                                      another facilitys exam outline which was developed using the same program.
developed using the same program.
                                                                                            -AND-Sampled APE items for Tier 2 Group 2 repeat 5 of 24 items from that same facilitys exam.
 
                                                              - Page 1 -}}
-AND-Sampled APE items for Tier 2 Group 2 repeat 5 of 24 items from that same facility's
 
exam.}}

Latest revision as of 21:29, 14 November 2019

Appendix F - Region IV Written Examination Outline Quality Review Matrix
ML080170194
Person / Time
Site: Waterford Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 01/17/2008
From:
NRC Region 4
To:
Entergy Operations
References
50-382/07-302
Download: ML080170194 (1)
v • d • e


Text

APPENDIX F - REGION IV WRITTEN EXAMINATION OUTLINE QUALITY REVIEW MATRIX Review Performed by G. Apger (9/12/07)

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Errors 4. Job Content Errors 5. 6.

Q# LOK LOD Explanation (F/H (1-5) U/E/S (See below for instructions)

Stem Direct One Min Scope Job- Minu- SRO Back-

)

Focus L/U Ans Resp (TS?) Link tia Only wards See S Generic K/A 2.4.30 was listed as rejected Comments due to being less than 2.5 for RO. This is in column contrary to methodology outlined in the

  1. 6 selection process description.

While Tier 3 items are specifically identified as not eligible to be pre-screened out, they may be rejected if justified on a case-by-case basis: ES401 Att.2 See S While the specific K/As are different, it was Comments noted that repeat APE items in Tier 2 Group in column 1 are very similar to those repeat items in

  1. 6 another facilitys exam outline which was developed using the same program.

-AND-Sampled APE items for Tier 2 Group 2 repeat 5 of 24 items from that same facilitys exam.

- Page 1 -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML080170194&oldid=2161388"