I also found it kinda strange that on the last question only 4% got the full 2/2. I'm guessing this was due to the fact that people didn't finish. Also question 5 in short answer should have been marked more harshly, they accepted just "partial schedule". Which to me would be too broad a statement to get the full mark. Especially since the answer was definitely variable INTERVAL not variable ratio and a partial schedule could refer to either of those.. Otherwise most of the other stuff is pretty typical. But gee the difference in percentages across 2010 and 2009 are quite different.
2010
The scores in the short answer section (overall mean 49% correct) were: Memory 53% correct, 48% for Learning and 47% for Research Methods. In the multiple-choice section, the mean score for Memory was 78% correct and the mean score for Learning was 77% correct.
2009
The scores in the Short answer section (overall mean 55%) were ‘Memory’ (59%), ‘Learning’ (54%) and ‘Research Methods’ (54%). In the Multiple-choice section, the mean scores were ‘Memory’ (81%) and ‘Learning’ (83%).
Just shows that in every section the exam was significantly harder, due to the new exam writers hired in 2010. So 2011 people keep that in mind, I guess they wouldn't want to make hard exam 2 years in a row but you never know.