Dr. Taub graduated from National College of Chiropractic. He is a member of the Council of New Jersey Chiropractors and ICA. He has a practice in Nutley, New Jersey and has been practicing since 1970

AJCC Jan 2000

Part III New Jersey State Board Questions National Board

The New Jersey State Board of Chiropractic Examiners has sent a letter (dated 12-10-99) and survey to all licensing boards nationwide. This letter questions the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE) Part III Examination development procedures and proposes sweeping new changes. The Part III examination tests written clinical competency in areas such as case history, physical examination, chiropractic technique and other relevant chiropractic elements. The New Jersey Board is seeking to have their concerns addressed prior to deciding whether to mandate the Part IV Examination for licensure into their state. the Board is expected to have a final vote in February 2000.

      The New Jersey Board’s explicit letter points out flaws in the current NBCE procedures that include failure to allow all states to participate equally in the development process, failure to allow the individual licensing boards to choose which of their members is most appropriate or qualified to attend development process, failure to allow participating representatives to review and consider questions deemed appropriate to their state at the meeting they attend, and failure to distribute copies of the exam to licensing boards to ensure that the exam continues to address appropriate areas of concern to their state.

      The letter points out that the states that require Part III have never been provided copies of the examination. The New Jersey Board writes that they “believe that recent Part III examinations may be focusing more on obscure academic facts as opposed to the practical application of chiropractic in a practice setting.” The letter also states, “The individual licensing boards may wish to reconsider their their support of any mandatory licensure examination that fosters limited input and participation, and does not allow for the opportunity for review.” The letter is concluded by stating, “The NBCE exists solely because the individual licensing boards make their examinations a requirement for licensure. Those same boards should ensure that the exams continue to address areas of concern.”

      This letter appears to be another attempt by licensing boards to reign in the unquestioned authority the NBCE has enjoyed in recent years. It is particularly important that the licensing boards gain control over the content of the examinations. It is no secret that the chiropractic institutions must continually update their curriculum to ensure that their students pass the NBCE examinations. The content of these examinations should be derived directly from the licensing boards mandating the examination. If these boards are not providing the content for the examinations, as the New Jersey Board points out, who are the individuals within the NBCE who are developing the questions? The people who are writing the questions are literally controlling the direction of the chiropractic profession, as the chiropractic institutions must teach their students the NBCE information in order to pass the examinations. This is an unfortunate example of the tail wagging the dog.

      The New Jersey Board is to be commended for taking the initiative to expose these inappropriate examination development procedures. The nation’s licensing boards should support NJ’s proposals that help ensure that the individual licensing boards are directly responsible for the content of the NBCE examinations. the NBCE has been reminded that they serve at the pleasure of the individual states. New Jersey has requested that the NBCE address their concerns by letter to all licensing boards, we all await their response.

Back to AJCC Index