By the I.C.E. Editor

Back for a third year at the I.C.E. Exchange (Oct. 17-20) is the popular psychometrician panel, “Getting Beyond ‘It Depends’: Psychometricians Debate Hot Topics in Credentialing.” Moderated by Amin Saiar, PhD, Board of Pharmacy Specialties (BPS), panelists Daniel H. Breidenbach, PhD, ICE-CCP, PSI, Sarah Carroll, PhD, National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy (NBCOT), Andrew C. Dwyer, PhD, ICE-CCP, American Board of Pediatrics, and Tim Muckle, PhD, National Board of Certification and Recertification for Nurse Anesthetists (NBCRNA), will debate four credentialing hot topics of interest.

I.C.E. recently spoke with Saiar about his psychometrician background, what he’s most excited to hear the panelists debate on and what he hopes attendees will gain from the discussion.

What is your background with psychometrics and what excites you most about being a psychometrician?

I completed a PhD in industrial/organizational psychology and learned about careers in psychometrics from a statistics professor. Prior to that, I thought of psychometrics as a graduate-level course and a skill set to be applied to research, but never realized that could be someone’s full-time job. Since then, I’ve been working mostly in credentialing for the past 15 years, but I’ve also done a little with other types of assessments.

Maybe the best part of psychometrics is the opportunity to work with and learn from so many passionate and intelligent people of different stripes — and to help shape their assessments to be more reliable, valid and fair. I am vocal about the fact that psychometricians should not be the only ones concerned about accuracy (validity), consistency (reliability) and fairness. However, it is rewarding to be the champions of such important principles and to see the transformative effect these ideas have on the many stakeholders in testing.

What are some of the topics attendees can look forward to hearing during the panel?

I like to think of every presentation as a bit of a magic trick, and a magician never reveals the secret to the trick. I don’t want to ruin the surprise. I will say that these will not be debates over technical distinctions or statistical methods. There will be four topics of interest and applicability to all stakeholders within testing.

As the panel moderator, is there a particular topic you are most looking forward to hearing the panelists discuss?

Perhaps I will tease a bit about one topic, which is about microcredentialing. I will say that the debaters will not shy away from the tension between the need for rigorous methods and practical considerations in testing.

What highlights do you hope attendees will take away from the panel?

Two of the most common jokes about psychometricians are: “They always say ‘It depends,’” and, “Six psychometricians in a room yields nine different opinions.” Those are clever jokes and partially true, but I also hope there is an appreciation for the depth of analysis and critical thinking psychometricians put into any topic or discussion. These are folks dedicated to accuracy, consistency and fairness in all things. But really, my fellow presenters and I hope to inspire conference attendees to more fully consider diverse perspectives and the competing priorities in testing.

Anything else you’d like to share?

I will say this at the end of the panel discussion, but I will say it here too. The panelists, along with Isabelle Gonthier, PhD, ICE-CCP, who has collaborated with us on previous iterations, have enjoyed putting together and presenting this debate format now at three I.C.E. Exchanges. We would like to see this debate format with psychometricians and other assessment-focused credentialing professionals continue at subsequent I.C.E. conferences. In the interest of inclusivity and fresh perspectives, we invite and welcome new speakers who would be interested in participating next year.