NOW ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS for the 2025 Board of Directors.
CBIC positions available in 2025:
- Director with CIC, LTC-CIP, or a-IPC certification (4-year term — One seat available)
- Director with CIC, LTC-CIP, or a-IPC certification practicing outside of North America (4 year term — One seat available)
Apply here: https://bit.ly/3VyVw6T
The CBIC Board of Directors is comprised of 14 Directors, an APIC Liaison, an IPAC Canada Liaison, and the CBIC Executive Director. A Director’s term is four years. The full Board meets in person twice per year and by phone two times per year.
As a Board member, you will also have the opportunity to take leadership roles within the CBIC Board structure. As a director, you may choose to run for the office of Board President, Secretary or Treasurer. You may also be selected to lead the Test Committee or Marketing Committee.
**Applications are now closed.**
The Test Committee, in conjunction with the Testing Company, leads the coordination of all activities related to the development of all examinations offered by CBIC including but not limited to the CIC® examination, the a-IPC™, and the long-term care certification in infection prevention (LTC-CIP) examination.
To be eligible to serve on the committee, you need to hold a current CBIC certification and be able to make a commitment to attend meetings. Meetings will take place virtually and an online orientation will take place in early January 2024. Committee members should anticipate volunteering 12 hours of their time per year, meetings are scheduled throughout the year with time blocks varying between 2-4 hours per meeting.
The Test Committee is a three-year commitment and oversees item writing and review in addition to all aspects of CBIC’s test development process. Below are descriptions of each test development area subject matter experts (SMEs) on the test committee may participate in. Please note that assignments vary each calendar year and test committee members may be assigned specific examinations to assist with based on the needs of the committee. Test committee members are eligible to receive three Infection Prevention Units (IPUs) which are used for recertification.
Item Writing
SMEs participate in remote training with a test development professional from Prometric. They are then given an assignment to write items from the established content outlines . Assignments will vary based on existing gaps in the item bank for each examination.
Item Review
All newly written items are reviewed by a separate group of test committee members at an item review workshop. Item reviewers attend a training (may be virtual) facilitated by members of the Prometric test development staff. Subject matter experts who attend this meeting review questions submitted by the item writers.
Form Review
During a form review, participants evaluate the items on each exam form to eliminate unclear questions, repeating questions, or questions which cover similar material as other questions. Flagged questions are replaced with other questions in the same domain that are in the item bank. Flagged questions are either retired or sent back to item writing.
Problem Identification Notification (PIN) Call
During this call, poorly scoring items are identified and discussed. PIN calls focus on assessing the quality of any flagged, problematic items and decide on a consensus-based approach, whether to keep as is, archive or send the item back for revision. Prometric will present these problematic items to all participating SMEs and provide an explanation about the reason for flagging each item.
Standard Setting
The purpose of the Standard Setting is to establish the minimal standard of performance and the associated passing score for the examination. The testing company facilitates a group discussion on what the target demographic is and what the minimum standard for competence should be set at. Test committee members will read and answer each item on the test and predict the proportion of minimally competent candidates who will answer each item correctly and the group will need to reach consensus on the definition of the minimally qualified candidate.