Certification | Recertification | Comparison of NOMC and COMS | Find NOMCs by State | NOMC Certification Overview | What is Structured Discovery Cane Travel | Eligibility | Application Process | Examination Process | Fees & Payment | Appeals Process | Grievance & Discipline | Download Documents
Comparison of NOMC and COMS
A Comparison of Two Orientation and Mobility Certifications
Aditya, R. M. (2004). A Comparison of Two Orientation and Mobility Certifications. A report produced through funding from RSA under Grant number H133B010101-03, from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), Washington, DC.
This report provides a comprehensive overview on the historical foundations, methodological differences, professional standards, examination processes, and professional expectations of the two leading national certifying bodies in the Orientation and Mobility field. In the past five to six decades, two approaches to O&M have evolved. Although both approaches had the involvement of blind individuals in the early stages of development, one came to be directed primarily and predominantly by sighted individuals, while the other continued to develop primarily and predominantly through the work of blind individuals.
Since 2000, professionals under this training approach are certified by the Academy for Certification of Rehabilitation & Education Professionals (ACVREP). This program of training has come to be referred to as the conventional approach, described in greater detail in section 3 of this report. The roots of the latter approach, currently referred to as the alternative approach, may be traced back in time to when blind persons learned to move about from other blind people. In the past decade, the alternative program of training has been formally incorporated into a university-based curriculum. Under this training program, professionals are certified by the National Blindness Professional Certification Board (NBPCB). The alternative approach is detailed in section 4 of this report.