Board reviews structural PE exam data as pass rates and exam format prompt changes; pipeline of new structural licenses remains limited
Loading...
Summary
Board staff presented new exam statistics showing California candidates generally above the national pass rate on most structural exam sections but weak performance on the depth portion; psychometric analysis found time pressure, and the national exam body is adding an hour to the depth portion starting April.
Rick (exams and licensing presenter) gave the board a detailed review of structural professional-engineer exam results now available after conversion to computer-based testing. He said the board finally has enough administrations to report component pass rates and urged the board to consider the data in both short-term candidate support and long-term workforce planning.
Rick summarized the historical context: the structural exam moved from paper formats and mixed state/national components to the 16-hour national bridge/building format and more recently to computer-based testing. With CBT, separate scores by component (breadth and depth; vertical and lateral) are available for the first time. Rick said California candidates’ pass rates have generally equaled or exceeded the national average on several breadth and lateral components, but the depth portion showed significantly lower pass rates in some administrations. “Once you start getting below 20% and into the teens, that's problematic,” he said.
Exam vendors’ psychometricians examined early administrations and concluded the depth portion was speeded—candidates of all performance levels were using the full allotted time. NCS/NCWS staff and the vendor are responding: the national exam administrators will add an additional hour for the depth portion beginning with the April administration to address time pressure. Rick said the board will monitor results after the change and that a new occupational-analysis (PAC) study is underway which may prompt further adjustments to test specifications.
The board discussed related workforce concerns. Staff reported the board issued 70 structural-engineer licenses in the last fiscal year, a number board members and public commenters characterized as low relative to the profession’s needs. Public commenters and former board members told the board that an aging workforce, fewer students entering STEM and engineering programs, and the difficulty of the licensure process all contribute to a constrained pipeline of new structural engineers.
Several technical points were raised during questions and public comment: the structural exam has four depth modules (steel, concrete, masonry, wood) and the depth portion typically includes more seismic-focused questions; when the CBT format replaced paper reference books were no longer physically available at each workstation, which added complexity for candidates; pretest items and item-banking of new questions are operational issues for the exam vendor.
Why it matters: The structural licensing pipeline has implications for public safety and for the availability of licensed engineers for projects that require structural or specialty licensing. The board will watch whether the extra hour and forthcoming PAC study materially change depth pass rates.
Ending: Staff will continue to report exam statistics to the board and monitor licensing trends and workforce indicators; no regulatory changes were proposed at this meeting.
