2014

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF THE XRAY FLUORESCENCE SPECTROMETER EXAMINATION TAKEN BY TRAINEES

April 14, 2014

BY DESIREE HOPKINSON TECHNICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

ANALYSIS OF X-RAY FLOURESCENCE SPECTROMETER EXAM SCORES

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

THE EXAM

POINT ALLOCATION

..

GENERAL RESULTS

..

RESULTS PER DESIGNATION

..

ANALYSIS OF TEST SCORES

RECOMMENDATIONS

..

12

CONCLUSION

12

APENDIX 1 QUESTIONS/ANSWER SHEET ... 14

1|Page

ANALYSIS OF X-RAY FLOURESCENCE SPECTROMETER EXAM SCORES

AN ANALYSIS OF THE X-RAY FLUORESCENCE SPECTROMETER EXAM RESULTS
INTRODUCTION During the period March 5th to April 2nd 2014, 9 persons were trained in XRF Spectrometry. These persons comprise of 3 Samplers, 3 Analysts and 3 Technicians, each from A, B and C shifts. There were 4 sessions each comprising of a total of 29 training hours with an additional hour for preparation for the examination, and the rest of the time spent writing the exam. This document is written with the purpose of analyzing the results of the exam and to make inferences or to determine whether additional training is needed for the candidates.

The Following table shows the persons who did the training and their designation. SHIFT Employee Name Designation Sampler Analyst Technician Sampler Analyst Technician Sampler Analyst Technician Date Exam was written 21st March 2014

A B C

Romell WIlliams Cleveland Beckles Andrew Mc. Almont Damain Webster Fenton Johnson Clive Thomas Randy Johnson Jerry Joseph Waygon Liverpool

27th March 2014

2nd April 2014

TABLE 1: Cross section of Trainees

2|Page

ANALYSIS OF X-RAY FLOURESCENCE SPECTROMETER EXAM SCORES

THE EXAM
The Examination was made up of 3 parts. Part 1 comprises of 1 short answer and 14 multiple choice questions. Part 2 comprises of 20 XRF commands/abbreviations. Part 3 comprises of 11 short answer and application questions. The following tables show the topics the exam was based on and the points allocated PART 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 PART B 1-20 PART C 1 XRF/STARTUP 2 XRF CALIBRATION 3 XRF CALIBRATION 4 XRF CALIBRATION 5 XRF CALIBRATION 6 XRF ANALYSIS 7 XRF ANALYSIS 8 XRF START UP 9 XRF ANALYSIS 10 XRF ANALYSIS 11 DATA RESULTS/ANAYLSIS TABLE 3: Questions XRF/STARTUP BEAD PREP BEAD PREP BEAD PREP BEAD PREP CRUCIBLES CRUCIBLES XRF CALIBRATION XRF/STARTUP DATA RESULTS/ANAYLSIS DATA RESULTS/ANAYLSIS DATA RESULTS/ANAYLSIS XRF/STARTUP XRF/STARTUP XRF/STARTUP XRF CALIBRATION QUESTION TOPICS

POINTS ALLOCATION
# of points allocated to the following : Points QUESTIONS RELATED TO: allocated A B C BEAD PREPARATION CRUCIBLES XRF/STARTUP 4 2 16 30 8 SECTION/QUESTIO N# a2,a3,a4,a5, a6,a7 a1,a9,a13,a14,a15 , c1,c8 a8, B120,C2,c3,c4,c5 c6,c7,c9,c10 a10,a11,a12,c11

D XRF CALIBRATION E F XRF ANALYSIS

DATA RESULTS/ANAYLSIS 5 TOTAL 65 TABLE 2: ALLOCATION OF POINTS

3|Page

ANALYSIS OF X-RAY FLOURESCENCE SPECTROMETER EXAM SCORES GENERAL RESULTS

TEST SCORE Employees Romell Williams Jerry Joseph Andrew Mc Almont Randy Johnson Clive Thomas Fenton Johnson Waygon Liverpool Damain Webster Cleveland Beckles A(18) 18 18 17 16 16 15 13 12 16 B(20) 20 18.5 19 17 19.5 18.5 15.5 19.5 18.5 18.4 C(27) 23.5 23 20 21 17 16 20 16 11 18.6 Total (65) 61.5 59.5 56 54 52.5 49.5 48.5 47.5 45.5 52.7 % 94.6 91.5 86.2 83.1 80.8 76.2 74.6 73.1 70.0 81.1

Avg. 15.7 TABLE 4: RESULTS OBTAINED

The above table shows the results for the exam with their individual marks for Parts A, B & C. along with Percentages and is displayed in the Graph Below. Results are displayed in ascending order.

Percentage Obtained by Trainees- XRF EXAM

100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

GRAPH 1: RESULTS FOR EXAM

4|Page

ANALYSIS OF X-RAY FLOURESCENCE SPECTROMETER EXAM SCORES

RESULTS PER DISNATION
Results shown by the tables below show the results by designations.
SAMPLERS Employees Romell Williams Randy Johnson Damain Webster ANALYSTS Employees Jerry Joseph Fenton Johnson Cleveland Beckles TECHNICIANS Employees Andrew Mc Almont Clive Thomas Waygon Liverpool A(18) 17 16 13 B(20) 19 19.5 15.5 C(27) 20 17 20 Total (65) 56 52.5 48.5 % 86.2 80.8 74.6 A(18) 18 15 16 B(20) 18.5 18.5 18.5 C(27) 23 16 11 Total (65) 59.5 49.5 45.5 % 91.5 76.2 70.0 A(18) 18 16 12 B(20) 20 17 19.5 C(27) 23.5 21 16 Total (65) 61.5 54 47.5 % 94.6 83.1 73.1

TABLES 5, 6 and 7 Show results per designation

25 20 15 10 5 0 A B C

GRAPH 2: RESULTS PER SECTION

5|Page

ANALYSIS OF X-RAY FLOURESCENCE SPECTROMETER EXAM SCORES

GRAPHS 3, 4 & 5: DISPLAYING RESULTS PER DESIGNATION/SHIFT

Sample Prep
100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 Romell Williams Randy Johnson Damain Webster 94.6 83.1 73.1

Analysts
100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

91.5 76.2 70.0

Jerry Joseph

Fenton Johnson

Cleveland Beckles

Technicians
100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

86.2

80.8

74.6

Andrew Mc Almont

Clive Thomas

Waygon Liverpool

6|Page

ANALYSIS OF X-RAY FLOURESCENCE SPECTROMETER EXAM SCORES

TABLE 8 : CORRECT ANSWERS GIVEN RELATED TO: A B Employees Romell Williams Jerry Joseph Andrew Mc Almont Randy Johnson Clive Thomas Fenton Johnson Waygon Liverpool Damain Webster Cleveland Beckles POINTS ALLOCATED
BEAD PREP

C
XRF START UP

D
XRF CALIBRATION

E
XRF ANALYSI S

F
DATA RESULTS/ ANALYSIS

CRUCIBLES

TOTAL 61.5 59.5 56 54 53.5 50.5 48.5 47.5 45.5 65

4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

14.50 13 13 12 12 12 12 10 9 16

30 28.5 28 24 27.5 26.5 24.5 28.5 23.5 30

6 7 4 7 5 3 5 2 5 8

5 5 5 5 3 3 2 1 3 5

Correct Answers
30 25 20 15 10 XRF ANALYSIS 5 0 DATA RESULTS/ANALYSIS BEAD PREP CRUCIBLES XRF START UP XRF CALIBRATION

GRAPH 6: CORRECT ANSWERS

7|Page

ANALYSIS OF X-RAY FLOURESCENCE SPECTROMETER EXAM SCORES

TABLE 9: INCORRECT ANSWERS
DATA RESULTS/ ANALYSIS

Employees

BEAD PREP

CRUCIBLES

XRF START UP

XRF CALIBRATION

XRF ANALYSIS

Total 3.5 5.5 9 11 11.5 14.5 16.5 17.5 18.5 65

Romell Williams Jerry Joseph Andrew Mc Almont Randy Johnson Clive Thomas Fenton Johnson Waygon Liverpool Damain Webster Cleveland Beckles POINTS ALLOCATED

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

1.5 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 7 16

0 1.5 2 6 2.5 3.5 5.5 1.5 6.5 30

2 1 4 1 3 5 3 6 3 8

0 0 0 0 2 2 3 4 1 5

INCORRECT ANSWERS
8 7 6 5 XRF START UP 4 3 2 1 0 Romell Williams Jerry Joseph Andrew Mc Almont Randy Clive Johnson Thomas Fenton Waygon Damain Cleveland Johnson Liverpool Webster Beckles DATA RESULTS/ANALYSIS XRF CALIBRATION XRF ANALYSIS BEAD PREP CRUCIBLES

GRAPH 7: INCORRECT ANSWERS

8|Page

ANALYSIS OF X-RAY FLOURESCENCE SPECTROMETER EXAM SCORES

ANALYSIS OF TRAINEES TEST SCORES The 2 preceding graphs (correct and incorrect graphs) show the number of points the trainees gained or lost. In the Correct Answer Graph, the strong points for all the trainees were the questions related to the Bead Preparation, Crucibles, XRF Start-up and XRF Calibration. In the Incorrect Answer Graph, the weak points for most of the trainees are XRF Start-up, XRF Analysis and for some XRF Calibration. From the Scores, 2 persons were in their 90s, 3 persons in their 80 and 4 in their 70s.

INDIVIDUAL REPORTS
Romell Williams SAMPLER - Romell is one of the candidates who performed exceptionally well with 94.6%, and is the only person who got all 30 points for the calibration section and who also got the highest points (14.5/16) for the XRF Start- up questions. He needs encouragement and opportunities from supervisors to continue on his path to success. Therefore, with practice and experience he should be more efficient to perform when called upon. Jerry Joseph ANALYST - Jerry has also performed exceptionally well with 91.5%. The most points lost were in the XRF Start-up section. He should be encouraged to continue reading and practice some more whenever he is free. Andrew McAlmont TECHNICIAN Andrew has performed excellently with 86.2% and the highest performer from the group of Technicians. Andrews strong points were Bead Prep, Crucibles, XRF Calibrations, Start-up and Data Analysis/Results. However, he only scored 50% of the marks for XRF Results. This is an area he performs on a daily basis. Andrew needs to be more careful and also needs to read his manual a little more.
9|Page

ANALYSIS OF X-RAY FLOURESCENCE SPECTROMETER EXAM SCORES

Randy Johnson
SAMPLER Randy did excellently with 83.1% and has brought 2nd place among the samplers and 4th overall. Randys strong points are Bead Prep, Crucibles, XRF Start up, XRF Analysis and Data Analysis/Results. However, Randy needs to work on his calibration commands/shortcuts. Therefore, he needs to practice and read the manual a little more. Clive Thomas TECHNICIAN Clive, although scoring 80.8%, his score was very disappointing. Taking into consideration, that he knows the answers to the questions out of his head, Clive did not apply himself correctly and was careless in answering the questions as he did not read them properly. His strong points were Bead Prep, Crucibles, XRF Start-up and Calibration; his weak points were the XRF Analysis and Data Results. Fenton Johnson ANALYST Although quite nervous, Fenton scored 76.2%. Fenton needs more practice doing bead analysis. Also, he needs to read his manual in order to be confident to grasp the things he has been taught. He also needs lots of encouragement from supervisors. His strong points were Bead Prep, Crucibles, XRF Start up and Calibration. His weak points were XRF Analysis and Data Results. Waygon Liverpool TECHNICIAN Waygon scored 74.6%, another disappointing score from a Technician, since he is exposed to the subject areas on a daily basis. He did very little reading from his manuals as can be reflected in his exam. His strong points were Bead Prep, Crucibles, XRF Start-up and XR Analysis. His weak points were XRF Calibration and Data Analysis. He also needs the encouragement from the supervisors.

10 | P a g e

ANALYSIS OF X-RAY FLOURESCENCE SPECTROMETER EXAM SCORES

Damain Webster SAMPLER Damain has performed satisfactory with 73.1%, taking into account that this is his first time operating the XRF Spectrometer. Damain, definitely needs more exposure, hence he needs more practice running beads and recording the data analysis. His strong points were Bead Prep, Crucibles, XRF Start- up and XRF Calibration. His weak points were XRF Analysis and Data Results. Cleveland Beckles ANALYST Cleveland was very much distracted by everything around him. Scoring 70% was not satisfactory from him. He has the potential to do much better should he focus on his work. His weak areas were XRF Start up, XRF Calibration and to some extent XRF Analysis and Data Results. Cleveland should be encouraged to focus on his work and practice what he has been taught on a daily basis.

11 | P a g e

ANALYSIS OF X-RAY FLOURESCENCE SPECTROMETER EXAM SCORES RECOMMENDATIONS

After reviewing the scores of all 9 candidates, it can be determined that the training was a success, with an average of 81% from all the candidates. However, it would be recommended that an extra day of training be given to the last four candidates with the least scores. This will aid in building their confidence and knowledge levels in the programme. As for the other candidates/trainees, they need to be encouraged to continue reading and practicing their manuals so they would perfect their skills and knowledge base. Supervisors should continue giving opportunities to the Samplers so they can become more acquainted with the practical aspects. It is also recommended that this training be redone for at least a day within the next 3 to 4 months as a refresher course.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the training assessment was effective in harvesting the knowledge gained from the trainees learning from the training manual, both theoretically and practical. The trainees stated in their feedback that it was a good learning experience for them. They showed gratitude and extended their compliments towards the trainers putting together a well-planned programme. However, some of the trainees noted that they needed more training time and more practice. Nevertheless, the trainees are happy with their scores and would welcome another training exercise to develop their skills.

12 | P a g e

ANALYSIS OF X-RAY FLOURESCENCE SPECTROMETER EXAM SCORES

APPENDIX 1
QUESTION/ANSWER SHEET FOR THE EXAM SAT BY THE 9 TRAINEES.

13 | P a g e