Good idea, poor execution.
I purchased LC ready expecting a challenging, reliable question bank to help identify weaknesses while preparing for the national registry paramedic examination. There is useful material here, and several questions did successfully refresh concepts I had not used recently. Unfortunately, I ultimately stopped using the question bank because I could no longer trust the quality of the questions well enough to use them as a learning tool.
The issue is not simply that some questions are difficult. Difficult questions are valuable. The problem is inconsistent question construction. I encountered ambiguous, stems, unstated, assumptions, questionable, sequencing, grammatical and syntax errors, and rationales that occasionally revealed a testing objective that was not reasonably established by the original question. And at least one operations question the provided answer regarding NIMS/ICS responsibilities appeared to conflict with established incident command structure, rather than merely presenting an unusual interpretation.
Some questions also depend heavily upon extremely precise distinctions in wording. That is entirely appropriate on a professional examination – provided the question bank itself, demonstrates equally precise editing. When a learner has repeatedly encountered grammatical, syntactical, or factual problems, they can no longer reliably determine whether an unusual phrase represents, an intentional distinction or simply another editorial error. At that point, the learner is spending cognitive effort, reverse engineering, the authors, intent, rather than demonstrating or improving clinical knowledge.
I paid for the product and ultimately chose not to finish the question bank. I would rather absorb the cost and risk reinforcing questionable information or developing test, taking habits around inconsistent item construction. I hope future revisions place substantially greater emphasis on clinical review, current authoritative, sourcing, copy editing, and independent validation of questions, stems, answer, choices, and rationales.
Challenging learners is good educational design. Making them distinguish between their own knowledge deficit and the question writers ambiguity is not.
The issue is not simply that some questions are difficult. Difficult questions are valuable. The problem is inconsistent question construction. I encountered ambiguous, stems, unstated, assumptions, questionable, sequencing, grammatical and syntax errors, and rationales that occasionally revealed a testing objective that was not reasonably established by the original question. And at least one operations question the provided answer regarding NIMS/ICS responsibilities appeared to conflict with established incident command structure, rather than merely presenting an unusual interpretation.
Some questions also depend heavily upon extremely precise distinctions in wording. That is entirely appropriate on a professional examination – provided the question bank itself, demonstrates equally precise editing. When a learner has repeatedly encountered grammatical, syntactical, or factual problems, they can no longer reliably determine whether an unusual phrase represents, an intentional distinction or simply another editorial error. At that point, the learner is spending cognitive effort, reverse engineering, the authors, intent, rather than demonstrating or improving clinical knowledge.
I paid for the product and ultimately chose not to finish the question bank. I would rather absorb the cost and risk reinforcing questionable information or developing test, taking habits around inconsistent item construction. I hope future revisions place substantially greater emphasis on clinical review, current authoritative, sourcing, copy editing, and independent validation of questions, stems, answer, choices, and rationales.
Challenging learners is good educational design. Making them distinguish between their own knowledge deficit and the question writers ambiguity is not.
Show more
Ridiculous
I have been a paramedic for 29 years and am taking my NREMT for the first time. I CANNOT believe that the questions in this app are correct. They have some of the most ridiculous answers I have ever seen. Sitting here with another seasoned medic and a lifetime trauma ED RN and we are all shaking our heads at the stupidity of some of these answers.
Show more
Learn to defeat the trick questions with this app
I just passed my cognitive at about 80 questions, with the help of this app. It is absolutely worth the money.
The NREMT exams famously have tricky questions that hinge on one word that changes the whole meaning of the question, or that have no good answer and you have to pick the "least bad" answer.
This app gives you practice deconstructing these kind of questions, and the application type questions. It also helps with the knowledge review, but if your weakness is with those inscrutable trick questions, this is the app for you.
The NREMT exams famously have tricky questions that hinge on one word that changes the whole meaning of the question, or that have no good answer and you have to pick the "least bad" answer.
This app gives you practice deconstructing these kind of questions, and the application type questions. It also helps with the knowledge review, but if your weakness is with those inscrutable trick questions, this is the app for you.
Show more
$35 and never works
I feel like if I pay all this money the app should work more than once a week. Questions are great and helpful and so are the tips when you answer incorrectly but why on earth did I spend just as much as I could’ve on a textbook for the convenience if it never opens.
Good product
I did all of the review and test questions before taking my National Registry Cognitive Exam, and I feel that it adequately prepared me for it. I passed on my first attempt.
Do not reccomend
This app is all over the place. The answers are not all correct. Pocket Prep is MUCH better. There are many other alternatives you can choose. Do not waste your money on this. Explanations do not go into depth either.
