This article considers how quality professionals and practitioners can more effectively prepare for their certification exams which are proctored or supervised as they complete a selection of responses from multiple-choice questions.

The title is based on the reference to the famous book by the Nobel Prize recipient, Daniel Kahneman, “Thinking Fast and Slow.” This book describes the contrasts between two mental systems: the “fast” system being reactive and the “slow” system being more measured and contemplative.

From the perspective of someone who has not only successfully completed multiple certifications, offered by ASQ, PMI, ISTQB, ITIL, and various ISO Lead Auditor protocols, I can attest that there is a specific skill set needed to recognize valid and invalid selection. As a participating author and editor of various study guides (most recently the ASQ Six Sigma Green Belt Study Guide from ASQ Press, available here), I can attest and will describe how these two approaches were applied to the construction of test questions.

My personal technique was to start with a question that provide the correct response. In the case of the Study Guide, our primary reference was the ASQ Six Sigma Green Belt Handbook, also from ASQ Press. The initial statement would be something affirmative which could then be converted into a portion of a multiple choice question.

Consider the affirmative statement, “A rational subgroup is a sample in which all of the items are produced under common conditions, selected in order to minimize or exclude assignable causes of variation”. 

A candidate who was familiar with the definition of rational subgroups and control chart techniques would immediately recognize the correct response when it was presented. When the correct response is available, the conscientious and deliberate mental system would select the correct response. However, for those with less confidence in their knowledge, their choices would be susceptible to “trickery” from phrasing. These invalid distractor choices would appeal to the “fast” system, causing the candidate to select the incorrect response as part of a rapid reaction to available content.

One technique would be to confuse the candidate by referencing rational numbers, which refer to numbers that could be expressed as a quotient or fraction. The rapid response would connect the word rational to rational numbers and be diverted away from the proper context of rational subgroups.

A more elegant method would be to have an identical statement with a slight but critical difference. The substitution of the term “assignable causes” with “common causes,” or “minimize” with “maximize” would show the antonym of the correct response. It would be invalid because of the mismatch, but the reactive, fast-thinking mind would respond to it on initial recognition of the first portion as a correct statement.

Another technique for invalid responses is a statement effectively dismissing the question. A selection indicating that rational subgroups are not applicable to attribute or variable data represents a way for the fast-thinking mind to eliminate the question with an easy alternative. By removing the legitimacy of the question, the candidate could satisfy themselves that none of the other alternatives were correct or even worth consideration.

Some tests use the “all of the above” option to provide an equivalent selection so that candidates do not have to make the most valid of several selections. This is also an area where “trickery” could be applied to convince the “fast-thinking" mind to choose the aggregated option because they all seem to be correct.

One shortcoming of the “slow-thinking” approach is that it can be time consuming. If an exam requires the candidate to respond to 100 questions within four hours, the average time allocated per question is too restrictive for the long and deliberate contemplations. The countermeasure is to accelerate the faculty of these “slow-thinking” capabilities.

One tactic is to gain a firm command of common terms and their definitions. Memorization might be an offensive term to some, but factual recall is highly valued in time-sensitive situations. When the factual recall is quick and correct, the deliberative process can be completed more quickly. This takes repetition and frequent exposure to the core facts and their practical applications. This is the reason that certain certification exams require a minimum level of direct work experience within the fields.

From the perspective of certification exams, it is necessary to carefully review every question and multiple choice option, even reading the words out loud. Elimination of the invalid responses reduces the choices and improves the probabilities of a correct selection. Circling the impactful words like “minimize”, “maximize”, or absolute terms like “always” would help to determine whether an option is valid or a cleverly-worded distractor.

A recommended practice is to check the responses before submitting.  If there is doubt or hesitation, one suggestion is to trace the question backwards to determine why the response is correct. This is an especially effective technique for questions involving mathematical formulas, or critical values obtained from a table. Retracing the steps to obtain the response could distinguish whether you correctly discerned whether the question required a one-tailed or two-tailed statistical model, and if the critical value reflected that correct model.

Certification exams are intended to be a tangible reflection of proficiency in a particular area. While my personal technique with creating these types of questions was to start first with the affirmative, correct statement, and build the invalid detractors alongside; other questions might be created differently. Ultimately, if knowledge resides solely in the “fast-thinking” part of the brain, it will be rapidly forgotten.

In contrast, full immersion in the topic through deliberative study and practical application will prepare candidates far more effectively, and the knowledge will be retained and sustained for a longer duration. When “slow-thinking” modes are repeated and frequently practiced, the rapidity will match those of “fast-thinking” attempts, and the rates of correct selection will be much higher with a better appreciation of breadth, context, and nuances.

My best advice for passing a certification exam is not to select those courses or publications that make lofty promises of guaranteed pass marks. The proven approach adopted by me and others who have made long-term professional commitments involves treating the exams as a necessary entry point toward life-long learning and continuous improvement and personal development in the field. You are not testing the exam, you are testing yourself against the exam, and preparing yourself for greater personal and professional challenges ahead.