CHES common mistakes
CHES · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Selecting the data-collection method that feels most familiar (usually a written survey) instead of the method that fits the population, timeline, and purpose stated in the stem.
Prep materials drill survey and questionnaire vocabulary heavily, so candidates pattern-match on words like 'assess' or 'determine' and default to the instrument they have seen most often.
What to do instead
Before reading the answer options, write three things from the stem: the purpose (needs assessment, surveillance, or evaluation), the population's literacy/access characteristics, and the resource limits. Then eliminate any option that fails even one of those three, even if it is the most rigorous-sounding method.
Classifying a factor in a scenario as predisposing when it is enabling, or enabling when it is reinforcing (for example, labeling family encouragement as enabling, or transportation as reinforcing).
The three categories all sound like 'things that affect behaviour,' and candidates sort by how positive or negative the factor seems rather than by its functional role.
What to do instead
Apply the provider test mechanically: predisposing factors live inside the person (knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, perceived need); enabling factors are external skills and resources that make the action possible (transportation, cost, availability, skills); reinforcing factors are the rewards and feedback that come from other people after the behaviour (family praise, provider encouragement, peer norms). Sort by 'who supplies it and when', not by whether it sounds helpful.
Choosing a teaching method that does not match the learning domain of the stated objective, such as selecting a lecture or a handout for an objective that requires the learner to demonstrate a psychomotor skill like self-injection or correct condom use.
Lecture and discussion are the methods candidates have seen modeled most often, and the stem's wording ('educate participants about...') pulls attention toward content rather than the verb describing what learners must do.
What to do instead
Circle the objective's action verb first. If it is 'demonstrate', 'perform', or 'apply', choose a method with practice plus feedback (demonstration/return demonstration, role-play, skills lab). If it is 'state' or 'identify', a presentation or discussion is adequate. If it is 'commit' or 'adopt', choose methods that surface values and social norms (small-group discussion, peer modeling).
Using 'reliability' and 'validity' interchangeably in items about instruments, and picking the option that says an instrument is valid because it produced the same score twice or reliable because it measured what it claimed.
Both terms are described in prep material as 'good qualities of an instrument,' and under time pressure the candidate reads whichever term appears first in the option and accepts it.
What to do instead
Before evaluating the options, write one line at the top of your scratch space: reliability = consistency/repeatability; validity = accuracy, measuring the intended construct. Then check the stem for the operative evidence: identical repeat scores are a reliability claim; agreement with a gold standard or with observed behaviour is a validity claim. An instrument can be reliable and invalid, so reject any option implying that consistency guarantees accuracy.
Choosing the study design or statistical test that sounds most rigorous rather than the one the scenario supports, such as labeling a single-group pretest-posttest study as a true experimental design, or selecting a t-test for two categorical variables.
Candidates associate 'experimental' and 'advanced statistics' with correct answers, and stems rarely announce missing features (no control group, no random assignment) in obvious language.
What to do instead
Extract two facts from the stem before answering: is there a comparison group, and was assignment random? No comparison group means pre-experimental; comparison group without randomization means quasi-experimental; both means experimental. For statistics, count the variables and note their level of measurement: two categorical variables point to chi-square, one categorical and one continuous with two groups points to a t-test, and three or more group means point to ANOVA. Answer from that count, not from which term looks more sophisticated.
Treating advocacy, coalition building, and health education as interchangeable, and choosing the option labeled 'advocacy' whenever a scenario mentions community change, policy, or decision makers.
The word 'advocacy' carries strong positive connotations and candidates conflate 'working to change the environment' with any community-level activity; many also do not distinguish advocacy from direct lobbying.
What to do instead
Ask what the scenario actually asks for. Advocacy is a deliberate process of influencing decision makers or public opinion; education is planned learning to build knowledge and skills; lobbying is a specific attempt to influence a legislative vote, which carries legal and organizational limits for many employers. If the stem asks how to build residents' knowledge, education is the answer even when the ultimate goal is policy change. If it asks how to influence a council vote, that is lobbying, and the correct response often involves checking organizational policy or role limits.
Choosing a communication channel or format because it reaches the largest number of people, without checking whether the priority population can access or comprehend it, such as recommending a website and downloadable PDF for an audience described as having limited literacy and no home internet.
Candidates optimize for reach and cost efficiency, and they gravitate to channels they personally find credible rather than to what the stated audience uses and understands.
What to do instead
Build a three-item checklist from the stem: reading level, access to the channel, and preferred language or cultural context. Eliminate any option that fails one item, then choose among survivors. When the stem notes limited literacy, prefer formats that reduce text demand (pictorial, oral, video, in-person, teach-back) and confirm readability with a plain-language or readability check rather than assuming grade-level appropriateness.
Selecting a leadership or management approach by prestige rather than fit, always picking transformational or democratic leadership and always picking 'collaborate' or 'build consensus' regardless of the situation described.
Leadership theory is taught with strong normative framing that makes some styles sound inherently better, and candidates memorize style names without linking each to the conditions it suits.
What to do instead
Read the stem for two cues: the group's competence and experience, and the time available. In an emergency with an untrained group, directive/autocratic action is defensible; with an experienced, committed team and adequate time, participative or transformational approaches fit. Also separate leadership (setting direction and influencing) from management (organizing resources, budgets, staffing) - if the stem asks about scheduling, budgeting, or workflow, the answer is a management function even when the stem uses the word 'leader'.
Answering ethics items with the option that produces the greatest health benefit or the most complete data, even when that option overrides participant autonomy, breaches confidentiality, or bypasses proper consultation.
Health educators are trained to maximize program reach and data quality, so the 'most effective' option reads as the most professional one, and outright unethical options are usually easy to spot while subtler autonomy violations are not.
What to do instead
Before scoring options, screen every one against four questions: does it respect the participant's voluntary, informed choice; does it protect confidentiality and privacy; does it stay within the educator's competence and role; and does it involve consultation or reporting when a conflict or risk exists? Eliminate any option that fails a screen regardless of expected benefit. When a stem describes a values conflict, a colleague's misconduct, or a request outside the educator's scope, the answer is almost always to consult, refer, or follow the established reporting process rather than to act unilaterally.
Solving cross-sector problems alone, choosing the option where the health educator plans and delivers the program single-handedly rather than the option that convenes partners, clarifies roles, and shares ownership with the affected community.
Individual action feels faster and safer on a timed exam, and candidates worry that partnership options sound vague or slow compared with a concrete solo action.
What to do instead
In any item that names multiple sectors, existing organizations, or community stakeholders, prefer the option that identifies who must be at the table and how roles and decision-making will be shared. Check that the option includes a reciprocal element - shared planning, shared data, or community input into priorities - because options that merely 'inform' or 'recruit' partners are coordination, not collaboration. Keep the solo option only when the stem explicitly places the decision within the educator's individual scope or an urgent safety issue is described.