Mistakes in the CQE Study Guide

[alexcady77]

It's been over a month since I reached out to ASQ concerning mistakes I believe to be in the CQE study guide. My exam is quickly approaching and while I feel confident I'm right, I would feel better if I could get someone to confirm the errors. Hope someone has a little spare time and thanks in advance!

1) Chapter III question 28 answer calculates the reliability for only 3 of the 4 components in standby mode. Example 3.6 (page 129) of the Certified Quality Engineer Handbook 4th edition calculates all 3 of 3 components in standby mode.

2) Chapter VI question 54 answer shows the critical value of F(0.05,2,12) = 19.41. The F critical value with significance of 5% and degrees freedom 2 (numerator) and 12 (denominator) would be 3.89 not 19.41.

3) Chapter VI question 45 answer shows the critical value of F(0.05,27,24) = 1.93. The F critical value with significance of 5% and degrees freedom 27 (numerator) and 24(denominator) would be 1.96 not 1.93

 

[Jen Kirley]

Welcome alexcady77!

It has been a long time since I served on the board of examination editors for CQT and CQI, but I was not aware then (and could not find how this evening) your question might be answered before the exam. ASQ reviews and keeps/edits/discards its past questions based on performance by test takers. The team members individually researched the current proposed exam questions, then discussed them with focus on accuracy, clarity, and reasonable level of difficulty within the Body of Knowledge. Members of this board did have the opportunity to push back on questions we did not agree with, but we were occasionally (and to my great disappointment in my case) over ridden. In short, they do try to produce high quality exams but there are a few misses.

You could try the discussion boards.

 

[alexcady77]

Welcome alexcady77!

It has been a long time since I served on the board of examination editors for CQT and CQI, but I was not aware then (and could not find how this evening) your question might be answered before the exam. ASQ reviews and keeps/edits/discards its past questions based on performance by test takers. The team members individually researched the current proposed exam questions, then discussed them with focus on accuracy, clarity, and reasonable level of difficulty within the Body of Knowledge. Members of this board did have the opportunity to push back on questions we did not agree with, but we were occasionally (and to my great disappointment in my case) over ridden. In short, they do try to produce high quality exams but there are a few misses.

Thank you for the reply. Sorry for the miscommunication. The questions I'm referring to are within a CQE "study guide" sold by ASQ. Two of the issues deal with properly reading an F distribution table. Would you be able to confirm that I'm interpreting F(0.05,2,12) to be 3.89 and not 19.41? Appreciate any help and again thank you for responding. Alex

 

[Jen Kirley]

I am sorry alexcady, you did not miscommunicate (sometimes the materials and/or exams are wrong) and I am not strong enough in the subject matter to confirm your answers are correct or not.

I hope one of our fellow Covers can help with the problems.

 

[peter2022]

Hi, I have come across the same mistake and it got me fuming real bad. Of all publishers I would expect ASQ the least to commit these sort of mistakes especially in a study guide for an expensive exam. Did you hear back from them? I was looking for an errata to the Study Guide on the ASQ website but did not find one. I am fairly confident there is an error but my knowledge is not strong enough to tell if the error is in the CQE Handbook or in the Study Guide but for sure they don't match. The question is what is on top of the sum symbol, n or n-1. In the Handbook it is 0 to n, in the Study Guide it is 0 to 4, but on a link I found it's n-1, and when they work the problem in the Study Guide also n-1 is implied. I guess it may also be a function of what you mean by n, the total number of components or the number of standby components (besides the main component(s)). There is a 20% margin on the exam for mistakes I think that's pretty generous but it is frustrating for sure. On Amazon the Study Guide has some text reviews where mistakes are also mentioned multiple times.

 

[Tidge]

This is a frustrating circumstance. I did not rely on the ASQ CQE certification study guide when I prepped for my CQE exam, but I do recall finding some (easy to make, I thought) math errors in the materials I was using to prep. In that era, on the CQE exam itself (and to a lesser extent on the CQA exam) the "math" problems were all multiple choice, and so while the BoK may expect an CQE to actually do the math, I found that it was ultimately an exercise in doing enough math to eliminate three of the choices. Often two of the choices were blatantly impossible results... these used to be called "distractors" in the exam-writing world. Response distractors are supposed to be plausible, but when it comes to mathematics, it isn't completely practical to come up with three different plausible wrong answers.

I know that when I helped develop questions for a different ASQ exam, part of that job was to review questions (and answers) proposed by the other folks also working on the question bank. For non-math questions it was necessary to provide specific non-ASQ resources to explain not just the correct answer but also explain why the distractors were wrong, but plausible... this varies, depending on the level of cognition that was intended to be tested. For math-based problems, I would have expected that the peers were actually checking my proposed "correct" answer! I know that I was a pretty critical peer-reviewer, and that at least one of my reviewers asked for two questions to be re-written.

 

[GlennB]

Hi, I have come across the same mistake and it got me fuming real bad. Of all publishers I would expect ASQ the least to commit these sort of mistakes especially in a study guide for an expensive exam. Did you hear back from them? I was looking for an errata to the Study Guide on the ASQ website but did not find one. I am fairly confident there is an error but my knowledge is not strong enough to tell if the error is in the CQE Handbook or in the Study Guide but for sure they don't match. The question is what is on top of the sum symbol, n or n-1. In the Handbook it is 0 to n, in the Study Guide it is 0 to 4, but on a link I found it's n-1, and when they work the problem in the Study Guide also n-1 is implied. I guess it may also be a function of what you mean by n, the total number of components or the number of standby components (besides the main component(s)). There is a 20% margin on the exam for mistakes I think that's pretty generous but it is frustrating for sure. On Amazon the Study Guide has some text reviews where mistakes are also mentioned multiple times.

Every get an answer to this one? Is it n or n-1?

 

[peter2022]

I have bagged 3 ASQ qualifications and I have now some experience with the following study material categories: ASQ handbooks, ASQ study guides, and ASQ question banks. They are all teeming with editorial mistakes, typos, obvious signs of hasty last minute copy-and-paste operations, baffling redundancies, misplaced content, etc. etc., the list is so long I can't even be bothered to continue. If I stumble upon something that may be a mistake, I just skip it, and maybe use a non-ASQ reference to clarify the point. ASQ certification exams are very well presented and show obvious signs of care - but the study materials are like you are in a different world. I wonder why?

 

[Tidge]

... I have now some experience with the following study material categories: ASQ handbooks, ASQ study guides, and ASQ question banks. They are all teeming with editorial mistakes, typos, obvious signs of hasty last minute copy-and-paste operations, baffling redundancies, misplaced content, etc. etc., the list is so long I can't even be bothered to continue. If I stumble upon something that may be a mistake, I just skip it, and maybe use a non-ASQ reference to clarify the point. ASQ certification exams are very well presented and show obvious signs of care - but the study materials are like you are in a different world. I wonder why?

I was led to believe that the ASQ question banks are not available to the general public, perhaps the policy has changed? My time developing (and reviewing) questions for the question bank was an interesting one... and I can testify that the development of the questions (and answers) in the bank were uneven. This was for a subject area that did not require any mathematics beyond nomenclature. The process (years ago now) was:

• Direct development of BoK questions with plausible distractors, at the appropriate level of cognition, with publicly available resources that were neither study guides nor wikipedia.
• Review of questions developed by others
• Touch-up work responding to reviewers

I believe after each step there was some "editorial influence" exerted; I worked with a colleague on the same question bank so I saw my work passed to my colleague and what had been 'touched up'. The first bullet is rather subjective, especially for levels of cognition that go beyond memorization/recitation... for example, it's not easy to reference a commonly available resource that makes it explicit which option is "best" with plausible distractors... so in my case, I saw several of my questions hacked to pieces because of a zealous adherence to that requirement.

I also found it difficult to review others' questions/distractors. I was explicitly NOT the editor, but editing was what was needed (more than assessment). Some fraction of questions were fine, some had pitiful references (I spent many hours finding more appropriate references... which is indistinguishable from just wasting time), some were written at the wrong level of cognition. For the last category I sinned by offering alternative questions/answers on the subject at what I felt to be the desired level of cognition. This could be why I've never been invited back to participate in the question banks!

 

[peter2022]

I just passed another ASQ certification exam literally an hour ago. The exam is neat, clear, transparent, pristine, but the study materials are a different lot. ASQ certification exam question banks are a product now you can buy to support your exam preparation. They include 'old' (withdrawn) exam questions from earlier exams - and earlier bodies of knowledge, sometimes with obsolete content that is not in the current BoK anymore, mistakes in the answer key, and some stuff I can only describe as nonsense. For this current exam I passed, I did not purchase the ASQ question bank as in my humble personal opinion they are not good value for money (to buy) and time (to do and study). I am really amazed by the abyss of difference between the study materials and the exam itself in terms of content, presentation, and quality. For now, I will appreciate my latest achievement, and probably take a break from everything ASQ (I am not American, I do not work in the US either). Thanks for sharing your experiences, I find it very interesting to read it, and well yes I was always wondering how MCQs can be appropriate to test the BoK at different specific levels of cognition - after all, the measurable pattern of behaviour you follow is marking one answer (as correct, presumably, but even this is just an assumption), and nobody will ever know how you got to that point. Having said that, most ASQ questions work quite well, and many of them will do make you pause and think for a while. I also noticed the distractors for calculations questions are often based on common mistakes, so they are 'good' distractors (in terms of question quality). Well, ultimately, professional bodies need to make money, and there is no such thing as the perfect product. I just wish the level of care evident in ASQ exams were extended to the study materials as well!