Aug 2012 NRRPT exam...helpful hints and suggestions?

[sjyu]

So...it's a little more then 1 month to the test.  At times I think I'm ready, scoring ~80% on the practice exams most of the time. Then I'll get a 60% and it blows my confidence.  I go back and study the problems I miss. 

I get thrown by questions that at first looks like it's about reactors but after I really read the question it's really a stay time problem or something similiar.   

I figure I'll give it my best shot and if I don't pass, take it again in Feb. But I really want to pass it the first time.

Any helpful hints or suggestions for the last month of studying/cramming?

[GLW]

you've been practicing for two years;

My exerperience has been mostly lab and hospital based.  I have no problems with that, but the reactor questions are throwing me on the practice test cd's. I've just started studying for the test.  I took the prep class through the radiation safety academy which was pretty good as a starting point for me and I'm reading Gollneck right now.  

With no reactor experience, will just reading about it actually be enough to past the test?  I might be able to get some time at a research reactor near by if needed.

Thanks
 

Are you ready?

You should be,...

quit fretting and just do it,....

 

[sjyu]

At this point I want my life back and I will be ready.  I'm buckling down and forcing myself to just memorize.   

I'm going back through the Gollnick book and doing the problems from the student manual, I'm enrolled in Mike Davidison's NRRPT online course this semester. I plan to listen to all those lectures and do those practice exams again before the big day. 

I guess I'm just nervouse that I'll choke up on the day of the exam and forget everything.  I read all the suggestions in the NRRPT post from 2003.  There are alot of good ideas about the test day itself.

You are right, it is a matter of just doing it. Thanks

[grantime]

good luck. 

[spentfuel]

When I took it back in the 90's my strategy was

went straight through and answered what I thought was right.  Those with calcs or those questions I was not matter of fact correct on I put a mark beside.  I finished the test first then went back and looked at the marked questions for a rethink.  Don't think I really changed anything but I had a second look anyway.

Handed it in after 45 minutes and went to the house.

For what its worth I did not study at all but I had a good bit of experience then and as for the calculator I did not need one most of what I took was easy enough to see the correct answer.

hope that helps and GL

sf

[Protectologist]

For me the best advice was to remember this is a test. The best way to prepare is to take tests. When you miss a question look up the answer and include the question on the next practice test. Don't get caught up in the "learning experience". Focus on practicing taking tests.
Develop a routine for taking the test. Try to establish the same conditions each time you sit down to take the test. Do things that you can do in the NRRPT test environment so when you take the test you set up a comfort zone when you arrive.
And when taking the test don't get hung up on a single answer. Make notes on questions to return to and keep moving. Sometimes a later question gives you a key to an earlier question. When you've gone through the whole test go back and take a second look at the questions you set aside.
And if you don't make it the first time try again. Achieving this goal is worth it.

[wp_913]

Hello,

I'm considering enrolling in the NRRPT prep course taught by Mike Davidson through Colorado State. Can you provide your opinion of the course, and if you felt that the time commitment was worth it.

Thanks

[Laning]

I took Mike Davidson's class back in 1992 when he was with General Physics. All these years later I can look back and say without exception that he was the best training instructor I ever had. I'm sure he's only gotten better over the years.

[Smart People]

Hello,

I'm considering enrolling in the NRRPT prep course taught by Mike Davidson through Colorado State. Can you provide your opinion of the course, and if you felt that the time commitment was worth it.

Thanks

Yes. Worth it.

[tagline]

I used the Gollnick book and also the DataChem software. I had no problem at all with the test.

[sjyu]

I'm considering enrolling in the NRRPT prep course taught by Mike Davidson through Colorado State. Can you provide your opinion of the course, and if you felt that the time commitment was worth it.

It's basically the week long prep course broken up into 1 hour lectures for viewing online.  You can take the practice tests as often as you like.    At first I was a little disappointed because I thought it would be more lecture/homework driven like college on-line courses.  but I like this format too.   

[Chimera]

Hello,

I'm considering enrolling in the NRRPT prep course taught by Mike Davidson through Colorado State. Can you provide your opinion of the course, and if you felt that the time commitment was worth it.

Thanks

Considering??  Dude - it's now July!  You should have started your preps at least three months ago if not longer.  A little "pre-study" will go a long way towards helping you through the Colorado course so you won't be holding back the rest of the class by asking questions that you should have known the answers to before you walked in the door.

I've taken the test twice.  The first time in 1981 and the second in 2009 to get back my Practioner status.  I passed it first time, both times.  As good as the Colorado course it - and I recommend it to everyone - it ain't no substitute for a lot of "nose in the books" time beforehand.

[sjyu]

Considering??  Dude - it's now July!  You should have started your preps at least three months ago if not longer.  A little "pre-study" will go a long way towards helping you through the Colorado course so you won't be holding back the rest of the class by asking questions that you should have known the answers to before you walked in the door.

I've taken the test twice.  The first time in 1981 and the second in 2009 to get back my Practioner status.  I passed it first time, both times.  As good as the Colorado course it - and I recommend it to everyone - it ain't no substitute for a lot of "nose in the books" time beforehand.

You are correct. It is a prep course and it helps if you already have a grounding in the subject or it won't help that much. 

I had 7 years of nuclear medicine research/hospital experience when I started at my current postion as a tech 4 years ago.   My company sent me to a NRRPT prep course way before I should have,  a lot of it went way over my head-except for the basics and medical parts.  This time I actually knew what he was talking about because I've read Gollnick and skimmed Bevalacqua's Basic Health Physics.   

[hazefactor]

I have a CHP that works next to me in my office.  He taught myself and another co-worker a NRRPT prep course he used to teach in the shipyards.  I've read the Gollnick book twice already and do practice problems for an hour a day as well.  I still run into questions, but that's the nature of these tests.  They have to have those head scratchers, or else people would start getting perfect scores.

I will have read the Gollnick book one more time by the time I take the test in August.

[IPREGEN]

Amazon has one study guide available
http://www.amazon.com/Student-Radiation-Protection-Technology-Edition/dp/0916339122

[sjyu]

As I'm going back through the questions in Gollnick, I'm wondering  what annoying minutia Oh, I meant important details that should be memorized for the test.  Things that you wished that you would have memorized?   

isotope energies?  the HVL and TVL per MeV of common shields? concrete/lead/water etc? Or will that be given if needed for a question?

Little things like that-things that in the real word if you needed the answer you'd just look it up in the rad health handbook or on line.

[mpbutler]

Looking for the RadWare scd for the NRRPT exam. Does anyone know where to find it. I looked in the shop pulldown but can not see it.
Thanks

[sjyu]

I took the test this morning and don't feel confident that I passed.  I'm sure I got 80 correct, 10 I'm pretty sure are correct and the rest are narrowed down to the best 2 and then I chose the best of the 2. A couple were just outright guesses because I didn't know what they are talking about.  (I can't remember exactly what it was but it had to do with instruments.)  
 
But it was a good experience to see how the questions are worded and such.

I'm weak on the inner workings of instruments and respiratory protection-DAC and PF-which respirator is the one you need when working in this concentration so not to exceed a DAC 40hr week.

They asked a couple basic chemistry questions.  Which of these does not have a full outer shell?
And which of these is a halogen-chlorine.   
If you have a fire in a storage area for 16 minutes what level of event/emergency is it?

The proctor said to expect the results in 5-6 weeks.  I guess I'll keep reviewing everything for the next month in case I need to take it again in Feb.
 

[Chimera]

Both times I've taken the test, I walked out feeling pretty sure I had messed it all up.  However, both times I passed.

[hazefactor]

So they had a question which was calculating the FWHM peak value... convert Mev to keV then divide.  You get 0.0092 something... It asks for percent

My question is.... they want a percent.... but no units are on the answers.... is it 0.92"%" or 0.0092?

0.0092 is 0.92%,  but no units means I should have answered 0.0092 right?  That's what I put.

The answer below it was a percentage question as well, but it had the answers accompanied by a percent sign.  Very misleading/confusing.  They should have just put the percent sign.

[tolstoy]

If your calc was 0.0092 then you have 0.92%.

[sjyu]

One of the questions asked was about different types of instrument efficiency, gave an exampe and then asked what type of effiency it was,  that hadn't come up in my studies (or I ignored it.)  But I did find a very nice explanation here:

http://users.df.uba.ar/sgil/labo5_uba/recursos/Gama_ray_detec_camberra.pdf

I will know the difference if I need to take the test again.

[hazefactor]

If your calc was 0.0092 then you have 0.92%.

"0.92%" wasn't an answer

0.92 and 0.0092 were answers with no accompanying units.  What would you have put?

[GLW]

"0.92%" wasn't an answer

0.92 and 0.0092 were answers with no accompanying units.  What would you have put?

Percent is not a unit, percent is a definitive description of a numerical relationship.

I would have selected the value which corresponds to the one part in every hundred relationship which meets the definition of percent.

And that could have been the least correct answer, as the test maker is allowed to define the terms for the test.

And then I would have challenged the answer key.

And I may or may not have been vindicated, in either case I would not lose any sleep over it.