What AchieveCE learners are saying

The exam has a strong Florida bias. Several questions reference Florida-specific statutes, particularly Chapter 491, without acknowledging that practitioners in other states operate under different laws. A test taker outside of Florida may find these questions confusing or irrelevant to their practice. I had a hard time with understanding the wording used in questions and answers. Both questions and answers often felt poorly worded or factually imprecise. In several instances, the correct answer required recognizing subtle distinctions in terminology rather than testing genuine conceptual understanding. The question about the origins of ethics is extremely western-centered. The Ancient Greeks were certainly not the first people to develop a system of truth, justice and moral balance. A high schooler thinks the history of ethics starts at Socrates.

Discussion of MMT by osteopathic doctors is not something most MD's need

Multiple gramatical errors present and badly written exam questions are why I rated this course 1/5 stars.

Appalling how dated the material is - I am actually embarrassed for whoever put this together. It is 2026 and the cited sources were from 2010-2015. WHAT? Making statements like rural areas cannot get internet? What a waste of my time and I wish I could get my money back

To time consuming with getting knocked out several times and taking the test and it makes you stat all over due to "non activity". really ? unnecessary stress and frustration.

I thought the course was very basic with a strong liberal bias. I did not like it. I would not recommend it. I didn't feel like I learned anything.

I was honestly horrified by the low-quality references this course pulled its material from. This was out of date with the current literature and prescribed contraindicated treatments which have been proven to instill complex trauma responses in autistic individuals. It also focused on children, as if autistic adults don't exist. It also failed to provide any information about experiences of autistic individuals from their own phenomenological perspective. This provided no information that helps clinicians provide quality therapy to autistic people. And while it occasionally appropriated language from the Neurodiversity Affirming paradigm, such as "neurotypical," it fundamentally came from an ableist, alienating, and pathologizing view of autism. Also, autistic adults have rallied against "Autism Speaks" as a hate group, and this course used them as a source, which would be completely offensive to many autistic individuals. I am horrified that this is a course taught to clinicians. I believe it will do a net harm to our clients that this training exists.

It seems to be outdated. Also, on page 9, there is information that is stated twice. There were numerous words that were hyphenated for no reason. The quiz was also confusing and had at least 1 error.

The information was severely out of date (the most recent year that was dated in the references was 2018). Also... why is the Heritage Foundation used as a reference for this course? This course needs a complete redo.

This needs to be directed more toward the RN scope of practice. It was loaded with jargon that was difficult to understand. More concise language would serve well for such topics.

Why did the cite the Heritage Foundation which is resonsible for Project 2025? Im certain there are more relevant and unbiased sources that could have been cited instead. Super outdated info all around. Do not recommend.

This was a waste of time. Meaningless chunks of text, details that were not important, and outdated.

Course erased my completed 60 question test not once but three times. I recorded my answered separately on the fourth try & input them with success finally.

There was no interaction. Although the material was informative, it was not engaging.

The citations are all dated and refers back to the DSM IV-TR. Also, the references appear to go to another course and are completely unrelated to this course.

It was very biased in my opinion, and not scientifically sound but rather opinionated and highly political.

Very outdated information that is based on research conducted in the early 2000's. The test needs to be edited, for example the last answer option in Question 7 is the same as Question 8.

This course needs to be read by an editor for formatting and grammar.....

Need variety in the courses - I was too wordy for my educational format. Too may repeated questions. Multiple spelling and grammar mistakes. Too costly for the information given.

Dreadful. Not a single photo. Disappointed I paid for this course. It couldn’t have been less helpful. Would not recommend to any oral health professional.

There were several typos, and a lot of incorrect information. Also, the questions would state "mark all that apply" but would only allow 1 selected answer which lead to missed questions.

There was a spelling error noted on the HIV/AIDS infographic. Also, at least one of the quiz question responses was incorrect.

Test was by far too technical. Everything was just opioids. Nothing else. If you never write for opioids, this is of no use to you

This does not feel like its meant for nurses. It has so many biology and pharmacological questions. I get it, nurses should know this but it just isn't practical nor helpful on day to day nursing g