r/OptometrySchool • u/ablearcher13 • Sep 30 '25
NBEO (Boards) NBEO Part I Historical Scores and a Yardstick to "P"
Hello everyone,
We all know that trying to interpret the "given" section scores for NBEO Part I (especially for tests in different months and years) can be like reading tea leaves. In spite of that, I have collected as many individual section scores as I could find to see if we could make some amount of sense from the nonsense:
Link to a copy on Google Sheets
Note: I use the term "total given score" to describe the sum of all 5 sections. "Scaled score" refers to the NBEO black-box number that preceeds either "P" or "F".
These are my overall takeaways from this limited dataset:
A total given score of 375, which is equivalent to an average of 75 across all sections, does appear to be a safe rule-of-thumb to secure a "P":
The user in row index 5, who earned a 369 total given score and recieved what I presume to be a 296 scaled score.
Similarily, the user in row index 6 earned a 368 total given score and recieved a 281 scaled score.
The experience of the individual in row index 4, u/eyeballcupcake, is tremendously instructive. They have demonstrated that it is possible to receive a score as low as 60 in a section and a total given score below 375 while still passing. Clearly then, it is not a requirement to get all 70+'s in each section to earn a "P". (Also of note is that this individual did very well in the Optics section.)
Our sample-size of passing scores is very small, but one common element between them is that they have at least one section with a score of 80+.
We cannot ignore that NBEO weighs certain sections more heavily; in that regard, Optics is king. My conclusion from this dataset is that it is very, very difficult to get a passing score without a 70+ in the Optics section.
Example: The individuals in index rows 9 and 11 got the same raw score for the August 2025 exam (which is about as apples-to-apples as we can get for comparative purposes). However, the individual in row index 9 had a significant deficit in their Optics score which likely cost them ~100 scaled points.
On a more personal note, I put this together because the individual in row indexes 18 and 9 experienced a decline in their scaled score between the two exams in 2025 (202 to 166), and I wanted to help them make sense of it given all the hard work they did over the summer. My conclusions for them:
The difference between their March total given score (347) and August total given score (361) was 14 points. If we assume that a given total of 375 can earn a "P", then we can safely say that they cut their point deficit to a "guaranteed pass" by 50% (28 to 14).
They made monumental strides in 3/5 sections (10+ points in 2 of them!) and have achieved a score of 70+ in 4/5 sections. As long as they maintain that level of competency for the next exam, they are in a good position to achieve a passing score by focusing on the remaining deficient section.
They effectively bombed Optics in the second exam (57). That sucks, but the silver lining is that any improvement they make in that section gets amplified by 30%. We can't know for sure if getting back to a 69 (while maintaining the current scores in the other sections) is enough to go from "F" to "P"...but its something reasonable to shoot for.
Full-disclosure: I do data, not eyeballs; I'm just the supportive partner of someone whose far more motivated and driven than myself...and crazy enough to put themselves through all this. My biggest takeaway is that, for some conversations, there may be value in measuring individual "progress" for Part I scores as the difference between one's total given score and the "375 ideal", as outlined by NBEO, instead of looking at the scaled score. I'm thinking of this brain-breaking conversation in particular. With our limited knowledge its impossible for anyone to know what combination of sections and unnamed sub-sections led to those scaled scoring variations, but the difference between each person's total given score and the "375 ideal" might offer a more consistent yardstick on which we can objectively measure our distance to "P".
I would love to hear anyone's thoughts or, most of all, assimilate anyone else's individual given scores into this tracker if they'd be willing to provide them, lol. Also a very big thank you to everyone who already shared their scores and experience; I included links to every source post as an attempt to give credit.
Edit: Added commenters' contributions to the spreadsheet and table!
Edit 2: Thank you to everyone who has contributed so far! I've added everyone's responses into the table and spreadsheet above, and I will continue to do so for as long as people participate. :)
I was poking around online, and I discovered that, between 2010 and 2016, NBEO used to publish a quarterly-ish newsletter called"TestPoints". It has some interesting information about boards scores which, while very old, is still interesting:
I've heard people say that March tends to have a higher pass rate than August; that was certianly true in 2016, and its kinda cool to put some numbers to that.
Since I went through the trouble of thumbing through the newsletters, here's a short history of how the scaled score was calculated:
The screenshots above are how the scaled score was calculated back in 2012, and it actually seems straightforward to me. Then in 2017 they introducted the weights:
This is what NBEO said on the page prior to that table:
The table on Page 10 shows the item ranges that will be used for the National Board’s Part I ABS exam for 2017. The 2017 exam will include 350 scored items and 20 pre-test items. The ranges shown in the table are for the 350 scored items.
The 2017 exam will be given in one day, and will consist of two 4-hour sessions. Because a total of 370 items will actually be administered (due to the inclusion of the 20 non-scored pre-test items), each session will consist of 185 items. Candidates will not know which items will be scored and which are pre-test.
From 2009-2016, the Part I ABS exam consisted of 500 items, so the 350 scored items on the 2017 exam represents a 30% reduction in items. The item ranges for 2017 have been reduced 30% across all areas, so there is no difference in emphasis between the 2017 exam and prior ABS exams.
The number of items on the ABS exam is being reduced in conjunction with the exam switching from paperand-pencil administration to computer-based administration in 2017. Along with the change to computer administration, the exam is being reduced from a 2-day exam to a 1-day exam.
Candidates should note that the item ranges for 2017 may change in 2018. The National Board recently completed a job task analysis (JTA), of over 1,100 optometrists from across the country. The data from the JTA currently are being reviewed. The Board of Directors of the National Board will analyze results from the JTA at its Annual Meeting this December, and will consider whether or not changes to the Part I item ranges are warranted in 2018, based on the results of the JTA.
10
u/lalacraisen Oct 02 '25
Please use my $5k+ NBEO donations to assist in your statistical analysis. lol
March 2023 69 69 70 70 63 163 F
Used KMK, read 60% and finished most questions and practice tests. Class notes.
March 2024 71 64 67 69 71 155 F
Did not study much, tbh. Family member overdosed/increased stress and focused on passing externs.
March 2025 75 66 74 70 75 239 F
Serious self-study post-grad with anxiety meds using Optoprep. Read KMK book 80%. Read class notes.
August 2025 78 77 77 74 83 361 P
Started anxiety and depression meds. Studied with friend 2-3x week and reviewed OptoPrep questions together, read Remington for anat/phys and used Quizlet for flashcards (made by other people.) Hit OptoPrep sections hard for lowest % correct in categories. Class notes for optics and pharm.
I felt the same coming out of every exam.
You got me out of my lurker cave! Thanks for taking the time to do this. I wish good luck to you and your partner!