I recently had the 'pleasure' of taking and passing the NAPBS Provider Exam.
The only passing score is 100%. I was penalized for answering that a provider should give more service than NAPBS the test requires as correct. The question answered, and actually answered not incorrect was "what is the standard for record retrieval when there is a computerized index of several years, a microfiche of several years more, and finally, an index card system further back in time?"
I answered it should be all three. But, the NAPBS giudelines test will accept only the first two as correct. That is, even though, most index card systems are easier to browse than microfiche record systems, and you, the customer will get even more years searched - NAPBS penalizes you on the exam for answering that you would do the work.
Sorry NAPBS members. It's hard to understand penalizing retrievers that offer a 'better' service.
Also, not to rant, but the idea that using only the central court location (where or when there are multiple court locations that have separate records within a county) for retrieving records is acceptable for NAPBS guidelines seems a bit short-sighted.
I suppose that is why the 'Guidelines' insists upon all record retrievers obtain E&O insurance.
The only passing score is 100%. I was penalized for answering that a provider should give more service than NAPBS the test requires as correct. The question answered, and actually answered not incorrect was "what is the standard for record retrieval when there is a computerized index of several years, a microfiche of several years more, and finally, an index card system further back in time?"
I answered it should be all three. But, the NAPBS giudelines test will accept only the first two as correct. That is, even though, most index card systems are easier to browse than microfiche record systems, and you, the customer will get even more years searched - NAPBS penalizes you on the exam for answering that you would do the work.
Sorry NAPBS members. It's hard to understand penalizing retrievers that offer a 'better' service.
Also, not to rant, but the idea that using only the central court location (where or when there are multiple court locations that have separate records within a county) for retrieving records is acceptable for NAPBS guidelines seems a bit short-sighted.
I suppose that is why the 'Guidelines' insists upon all record retrievers obtain E&O insurance.
No comments:
Post a Comment