Focus on MP: ABR Listens to Comments from Candidates and Diplomates
By ABR Associate Executive Director for Medical Physics Geoffrey S. Ibbott, PhD; ABR Trustees Sameer Tipnis, PhD, and Jennifer Stickel, PhD; and ABR Board of Trustees Chair Matthew B. Podgorsak, PhD
February 2026;19(1):6
An important component of the ABR’s exam quality improvement process is to assess the exam experience from the candidate’s perspective. To this end, candidates who take any of the ABR’s computer-based exams or the oral certifying exam are invited to complete a survey describing their experiences with the platform and their thoughts about the exam. We also invite examiners to complete a survey after each oral exam, and diplomates can leave comments on Online Longitudinal Assessment (OLA) questions.
Most of the survey questions for examinees ask them to pick an answer option, but in several places, they may enter free-form comments. The survey questions ask about the scope, relevance, and difficulty of exam topics; the performance of the exam software; and the availability and helpfulness of ABR staff, if assistance was needed. Examinees often take this opportunity to describe their expectations about the mix of topics on the exam or their opinions about the exam’s difficulty.
For the oral certifying exam, the examiner’s survey asks about the appropriateness and relevance of questions, the performance of the software, the quality and value of the training, and the availability and helpfulness of staff. Candidates are asked similar questions, but their survey focuses more on their perceptions of the exam questions and their examiners’ performance.
Sometimes, candidates include in their comments the request that they be notified of the ABR’s reaction to their thoughts. Because the survey responses are anonymous, it isn’t possible for the ABR to respond on an individual basis. Likewise, comments on OLA questions are also anonymous, so it is not possible to respond directly to the individual.
The ABR reads and takes very seriously the comments made by candidates, diplomates, and examiners. For the surveys completed by examinees, the comments used to be read by the associate executive director, who then summarized them for the Trustees. Summaries are now prepared by the ABR’s psychometrics team, who can invoke statistical methods to evaluate trends. For comments submitted regarding OLA questions, the ABR has developed an algorithm that triggers a review when any of several measures is reached, one of which is the number of comments received for an individual question.
The ABR encourages oral examinees who wish to report issues with an examiner to submit their concerns directly to the headquarters office by phone or email. The ABR’s response depends both on the exam and the type of comment.
When candidates submit comments about examiners immediately after an oral exam, and when a sufficiently detailed description is provided, the ABR can review the recording of the specific exam session and respond appropriately. If the examiner’s behavior is found to conflict with the ABR’s standards, or with commonly accepted standards of professional behavior, the response will be commensurate and might range from counseling and retraining to exclusion from future oral exams. It may also result in more severe disciplinary action.
The exam session recordings mentioned above are retained for only a short time as a matter of security and confidentiality.
The ABR also monitors social media for comments regarding our Initial Certification and Continuing Certification mechanisms. While the ABR does not respond directly to these comments and questions, we often use our articles in The Beam and the AAPM newsletter to address the concerns that have been raised. In fact, this article addresses the question “Why doesn’t the ABR respond to my comments?” Other articles have addressed questions about OLA scoring, exam administration dates, and the exam question development process.
In addition, our webinars are structured to address questions that have been submitted through one of the mechanisms listed above. For example, our AAPM webinar last September answered questions about the timing of exams, recommendations for preparing for ABR exams, and the life cycle of an exam question.
