Jamaul Jerido, CSC Docket No. 2023-2474

BackgroundJamaul Jerido appeals his score on the oral portion of the promotional examination for Fire Captain (PM2337C), Newark. It is noted that the appellant passed the examination with a final average of 84.230 and ranks 52nd on the eligible list.

This two-part examination consisted of a written multiple-choice portion and an oral portion. Candidates were required to pass the written portion of the examination, and then were ranked on their performance on both portions of the examination. The test was worth 80 percent of the final score and seniority was worth the remaining 20 percent. Of the test weights, 35.90% of the score was the written multiple-choice portion, 22.04% was the technical score for the evolving exercise, 7.45% was the supervision score for the evolving exercise, 5.71% was the oral communication score for the evolving exercise, 23.20% was the technical score for the arriving exercise, 5.71% was the oral communication score for the arriving exercise.

The oral portion of the Fire Captain examination consisted of two scenarios: a fire scene simulation with questions designed to measure the knowledge of safe rescue tactics and procedures to safeguard citizens, supervision of fire fighters and the ability to assess fire conditions and hazards in an evolving incident on the fireground (Evolving Scenario); and a fire scene simulation designed to measure the knowledge of safe rescue tactics and procedures to safeguard citizens, supervision of firefighters and the ability to plan strategies and tactics based upon a building’s structure and condition (Arriving Scenario). Knowledge of supervision was measured by a question in the Evolving Scenario, and was scored for that scenario. For the Evolving Scenario, candidates were provided with a 15-minute preparation period, and candidates had 10 minutes to respond. For the Arriving Scenario, a five-minute preparation period was given, and candidates had 10 minutes to respond.

The candidates’ responses were scored on technical knowledge and oral communication ability. Prior to the administration of the exam, a panel of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) determined the scoring criteria, using generally approved fire command practices, firefighting practices, and reference materials. Scoring decisions were based on SME-approved possible courses of action (PCAs) including those actions that must be taken to resolve the situation as presented. Only those oral responses that depicted relevant behaviors that were observable and could be quantified were assessed in the scoring process.

Candidates were rated on a five-point scale, with 5 as the optimal response, 4 as a more than acceptable passing response, 3 as a minimally acceptable passing response, 2 as a less than acceptable response, and 1 as a much less than acceptable response. For each of the scenes, and for oral communication, the requirements for each score were defined.

For the Evolving Scenario, the appellant scored a 5 for the technical component, a 5 for the supervision component, and a 5 for the oral communication component. For the Arriving Scenario, the appellant scored a 1 for the technical component and a 3 for the oral communication component.

Appellant's argumentThe appellant challenges his score for the technical component of the Arriving Scenario. As a result, the appellant’s test material, video, and a listing of PCAs for the scenario were reviewed.

The Arriving Scenario involves an incident where the candidate is a first-level supervisor who will be the highest-ranking officer and incident commander at a gas station fire. Upon arrival, a gas station employee reports that a portable kerosene heater in the gas station’s convenience store tipped over and the fire spread quickly. Additionally, another employee is trapped inside. Question 1 directed candidates to perform their initial report to the camera as they would upon arrival at the incident. Question 2 directed candidates to give their initial actions and then describe in detail the specific procedures required to safely remove the victims.

The SME awarded the appellant a score of 1 on the technical component of the Arriving Scenario based upon a finding that the appellant missed a significant number of responses, including, in part, ordering a hoseline to the seat of the fire in the convenience store and ensuring that the victim was rescued and removed. On appeal, the appellant maintains that he ordered a hoseline to the seat of the fire in the convenience store and ensured that the victim was rescued and removed at specified points during his presentation.

CONCLUSION

In the instant matter, upon review of the appellant’s appeal, the Division of Test Development, Analytics and Administration (TDAA) indicates that the appellant should have been credited with the PCAs at issue on the technical component of the Arriving Scenario, as well as the PCA of ordering the crew to check for extension. TDAA submits that based upon the foregoing credit changes, the appellant’s score on the technical component of the Arriving Scenario should be raised from 1 to 2. The Commission agrees with TDAA’s assessment in this matter.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that the appellant’s score of 1 on the technical component of the Arriving Scenario be raised to 2 with retroactive effect.

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