Hi everyone,
I took the Certified Maintenance & Reliability Technician (CMRT) exam a few hours ago, based on the CMRT Candidate Handbook and outline published on the SMRP website. Unfortunately, I did not achieve the required passing score.
However, I would like to share an observation for discussion and clarification. Based on my experience, the exam content and style were very different from what the Candidate Handbook describes. The questions were less academic or procedure-based and felt closer to interview-style judgment questions, with a strong emphasis on interpretation, implicit engineering concepts, visual identification, and schematic understanding.
In several cases, the exam appeared to assess engineering-level reasoning and drawing interpretation, rather than technician-focused practices and procedures. Additionally, the question style seemed intentionally designed to avoid familiarity with simulation or practice questions, which made preparation based on published materials difficult to align with the actual exam experience.
One additional observation that may be relevant is the certification data published in the SMRP Certification Directory. According to the directory, there are currently approximately 967 CMRT-certified professionals, compared to over 9,300 CMRP-certified professionals. While these certifications target different roles, this disparity may indicate that the CMRT exam structure or scope presents challenges for its intended audience, particularly for first-time candidates.
For example, in the CMRT Candidate Handbook, cavitation is addressed with questions such as:
"What type of mechanical damage to a centrifugal pump can be caused by cavitation?"
with answers focused on observable effects (e.g., pitting and erosion).
However, in the actual exam, cavitation was tested in a very different way. Instead of identifying damage or symptoms, the questions focused on how to prevent cavitation, such as whether it should be controlled from the suction side or discharge side, or by increasing or decreasing flow or pressure-without providing sufficient system details.
This approach requires engineering-level system analysis and fluid dynamics reasoning, rather than technician-level identification, inspection, or corrective practices as described in the handbook. The difference in question intent made it difficult to align preparation based on the official study materials with the actual exam expectations.
I am sharing this feedback respectfully, as I believe clearer alignment between the official handbook, stated scope, and actual exam content would benefit candidates and improve transparency.
I would appreciate hearing from other candidates or SMRP representatives regarding their experiences and any guidance for future preparation.
Thank you.
------------------------------
Abdullah Shaman
Head of maintenance & Planning and Follow-up at Tabuk Military city
Ministry of Defense Saudi Arabia
Tabuk
------------------------------