A board order names one of five categories. Later, at a Prometric center, the licensee spends 60 minutes writing about a scenario the board did not choose and did not write. The result comes back, and the board weighs it. If the order is ever challenged, counsel will need to say what the licensee was asked to reason through, where that scenario came from, and who checked it before the licensee saw it.
In Episode 3 of Board Insights, Dr. Greg Bond, chiropractic specialist with the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners, walks through that path. He works with the testing and psychometrics teams on exam content, including EBAS scenarios. Dr. Ken Pennell, EBAS lead grader, adds what he has seen from the grading side.
It Starts With a Real Violation
Every scenario begins with a case that came before a real board.
We use real world regulatory violations that have actually occurred. Regulatory websites across the United States have a bank of violations that occur, and we’ll model some of their case scenarios after those actual violations. We don’t use any words verbatim. We protect the identities of the victims and the violators. We’ll take a parallel scenario to something that happens in real life, and that’s our first step in obtaining validity.
EBAS holds more than 700 scenarios built this way across five categories: Misrepresentation and Fraud, Boundaries, Substance Abuse, Unprofessional Conduct, and Professional Standards. The board writes the category into the order, and EBAS selects a scenario inside it that matches the licensee’s profession and the type of violation. It is never the licensee’s own case.
Every Scenario Gets Its Own Rubric
Each scenario gets a rubric written for it, and every response to that scenario is scored against it. It lists everything the graders look for in a complete answer. It is a different document from the four-section rubric EBAS publishes for boards and licensees, which sets the sections and the 1 to 4 scale every essay is scored on.
Dr. Bond compares the scenario rubric to a guide wire. It keeps every grader on the same path to the same end point, and it flexes enough to allow for differences in professional standards between professions. Prompts do similar work for the licensee, pointing them toward what is being scored and leaving the answer to them.
Who Handles It Before a Licensee Sees It
Dr. Bond calls the path from submission to live use a conveyor belt. A subject matter expert or a regulator submits a scenario, and the testing department rephrases it around the basics of what it is meant to test. Grammar and fine detail wait for later.
Then it goes to a test committee of regulators, educators, ethics professors, and testing experts, with the psychometrics department taking part. The committee’s first question is whether the scenario describes something actively happening in the profession. Then it checks that the job details are correct and the scenario is relevant, and edits as needed.
Last, the scenario goes back to the testing department for a final polish. That pass fixes the grammar, tightens the wording, and makes three things clear: who committed the violation, who was affected, and every detail that shapes the context. A licensee needs those facts straight before they can say what went wrong and what should have happened.
It Is Not Done When It Goes Live
Once a scenario is live, the psychometrics department tracks how it performs, both by the numbers and by review. A scenario that falls outside psychometric standards is flagged and sent back to the testing department, which reviews it with subject matter experts and fixes it. One that still underperforms is removed from rotation, so a scenario stays in use only while it keeps passing its checks.
Dr. Pennell sees the same checks from the grading side. The whole process is evaluated psychometrically to confirm the assessment measures what it is meant to, and over his years as a grader and now lead grader, he has seen the rubrics and the grading revised to keep up with best practices.
What Stands Behind the Category in the Order
When counsel asks where the scenario came from, a board can answer. It was modeled on a violation that came before a real board, scored against a rubric written for it, vetted by a committee of regulators, educators, ethics professors, and testing experts, and tracked since it went live. The licensee was asked to reason through a violation that happens in their own profession.
About Board Insights: Board Insights is a conversation series from Ethics and Boundaries Assessment Services on how regulatory boards approach ethics, remediation, and disciplinary decision-making. Episode 3 features Dr. Greg Bond, chiropractic specialist with the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners, and Dr. Ken Pennell, EBAS lead grader.
