What constitutes a valid test is another one of those side issues to licensing that currently has no good or fair answer. There are dozens of factors to be considered when trying to imagine what an ideal test might cover, not cover, etc., all contributing to the overall question of "How hard should it be?". If you're going to give it as a prerequisite to even obtaining the right to work as an HI, is it fair or reasonable to give a test that a seasoned 20 year vet would consider "tough"? I don't see how it is. Is it fair or reasonable to the vets, the profession, or the consumer to give a test that almost anyone can pass. I don't see how again. So the test either has to find a middle ground (compromise) or you need more than one test, given at different points in time. I like the second idea. A demanding but reasonable minimum competency test to get in the door, and a notably more demanding, comprehensive one after so many months / years / inspections. All combined with meaningful training requirements, field / peer review, and CE, carefully worked out by the same semi-miracle I suppose. With two tests niether one would have to compromise to avoid being unfair. I don't know how many competeing exams there are out there, I've only heard about the NHIE and the Texas exam. I had to take the NHIE to obtain a license, without ever having performed a single inspection. The day I took it I was the only one who passed. I've heard some brag about blowing right through it without breaking a sweat, but later found that they had tons of experience in the field. Well duh, they should smoke it. Brian G.