April-Danielle Grant, CSC Docket No. 2023-2321, 2023-2322

BackgroundApril-Danielle Grant appeals the administration of the Quality Assurance Specialist, Health Services (PS7068K) and Quality Assurance Coordinator (PS8846K), Department of Human Services promotional examinations.

By way of background, for the Quality Assurance Specialist, Health Services (PS7068K) promotional examination, there were 70 applicants who applied, 60 were admitted to the test, and 56 took the test, including the appellant. For the Quality Assurance Coordinator (PS8846K) promotional examination, there were 69 applicants, 58 were admitted to the test, and 56 took the test, including the appellant. The tests for both examinations were administered on April 27, 2023. The eligible lists for both examinations have not yet promulgated.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant presents that for both tests, pages 17-20 contained passages that she had to read to answer 10 questions. She indicates that the directions on page 21 instructed her to disregard the information on pages 17 and 18 when answering the questions. However, the appellant provides that seven of the 10 questions were based on information from those pages. Therefore, she initially answered “c” for those questions to indicate that she did not have enough information to answer the questions. Thereafter, she realized that the last section on her test booklet had instructions that did not align with her answer grid. Subsequently, the appellant states that the test moderator confirmed that the test directions were incorrect, and she was advised to redo the section and disregard the printed instructions. The appellant responded that she would try, but that she was concerned that she would not have enough time to complete the test in the time allotted, and the moderator replied that she could see her after the test if she wanted to file an appeal. She asserts that she was at a disadvantage compared to other candidates since they had their full uninterrupted time to compete the test.

The appellant presents that she erased all her answers to the questions on page 21 and attempted to complete them before the test ended. She says that if she had not caught the mistake, she would have incorrectly answered more questions, and she indicates that some of the questions were answered very quickly due to the time constraints. She requests to either retake another version of the test or to retake the sections that contained the incorrect directions.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) provides that appellants shall have the burden of proof in all examination scoring and administration appeals.

AnalysisIn response, a review of the test indicates seven questions were identified as having answers that were found on pages 17 and 18. Further, the appellant correctly answered four out of these seven questions. Additionally, her results on these seven questions were in line with the overall candidate population. Regarding her requests, once a candidate is exposed to a test, it would be unfair to other candidates to allow a candidate to re-test or adjust the candidate’s score. Similarly, as this agency cannot develop another version of the test that would be the exact same level of difficulty as the test that all the candidates took, it would also be unfair to other candidates to develop a test specifically for the appellant. Concerning the appellant’s comments that she was at a disadvantage compared to other candidates, as all the candidates received the same instructions and were allotted the same amount of time, and the appellant’s score on the questions that were impacted by the instructions in question was in line with the overall candidate population, the record indicates that the appellant was not at a disadvantage.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that these appeals be denied.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.