CAA Customer Satisfaction Survey 2007 Results
An online survey was conducted in April 2007 to collect feedback from accredited academic program directors, faculty, CAA site visitors, and accreditation program staff. Of those surveyed, 166 individuals (51% response rate) provided input. Results indicated that 60% of respondents from academic programs are very or somewhat satisfied with the academic accreditation program offered by the CAA. Further, 55% of accredited clinical doctoral programs in audiology indicated that they were very or somewhat satisfied.
What Accredited Programs Say About the CAA
Comments from academic programs in regards to their satisfaction with the accreditation program offered by the CAA include:
"The entire process was thorough, evaluative, and allowed for us to grow through an introspective and external process of review. Our program is better because of CAA."
"The CAA accreditation process is a positive one. The accreditation standards provide a baseline for quality programming. I know that programs with accreditation have undergone a rigorous review that attests to the quality of the program."
"I can see the benefits of accreditation (e.g., the process improves the quality of academic programs)."
"Compliance with nationally established standards is extremely important."
"Accreditation enhances the status of the program within the university. The process provides a valuable means for self-study and program improvement."
Excerpts of Specific Survey Results
Specifically, 2007 survey results indicated the following:
Overall, accreditation materials are clear/easy to understand and allow programs to present a comprehensive picture of their program. For those programs and respondents for whom these questions were applicable, 85% found the Application for (Re) Accreditation form somewhat clear or very clear, and easy to understand, while 90% felt that way about the Annual Report form.
Accessibility of Materials
Information about the CAA's accreditation process is accessible and website information is clear. For those programs and respondents for whom these questions were applicable, 86% found information about the (Re) Accreditation process and the Annual Report process to be accessible, while 85% found that same information on the ASHA website to be clear.
Accreditation Staff Members
Accredited programs find accreditation staff members to be accessible (89% agreed), timely in their responses (89% agreed), and helpful (97% agreed).
Accreditation Site Visit Process
Programs find the site visit process to be valuable, in that the majority of respondents for whom these questions were applicable found that the site visit process:
- allowed their program to demonstrate compliance with the accreditation standards (89% agreed)
- facilitated program improvement (80% agreed)
- produced a site visit report that represented the site visit and the program in a fair manner (74% agreed)
- allowed the program to provide a response to the site visit report that clarified misinformation or misinterpretations in the site visit report (89% agreed)
Value of Accreditation Process
In terms of its value to accredited programs, 84% of respondents for whom these questions were applicable found the self-assessment/self-study process to be helpful, while 85% found the site visit to be helpful, and 89% found the site visit report to be helpful.
Areas that CAA Targeted for Improvement in 2008 and 2009
The number one value of the CAA accreditation program, that gives the most benefit, as identified by 64% of respondents from the 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Results, was the national recognition of CAA accreditation. While the CAA was pleased to see this validation from its "customers" of the value and recognition of the accreditation program, they did note several areas for ongoing focus and improvement in 2008 and 2009, as part of their ongoing commitment to quality. The primary focus for the CAA in 2008 and 2009 was communications with and resources for accredited programs, specifically:
- development and implementation of a comprehensive Communications Plan, after reviewing current modalities and frequency
- improving access by programs to expected review/process timelines and further increasing the transparency of the accreditation process
- providing further guidance to programs as to what the CAA is seeking in order to demonstrate compliance with the standards (e.g., enhanced HELP feature and sample charts/tables, accreditation application and annual report submission webinar sessions)
Other areas of focus for improving operations of the accreditation program in 2008 and 2009 included:
- evaluation of and calibration on accreditation decision-making process (e.g., performance assessment of CAA member roles, development and use of a browser-based secure collaboration site to streamline decision-making process)
- implementation and evaluation of revised candidacy application process
- evaluation of the Site Visitor program (e.g., re-training, calibration of current visitors, opportunities for performance feedback)
- further documentation of accreditation operating procedures and orientation program for new staff
- streamlining of the Application and Annual Report forms
- implementation and evaluation of the Higher Education Data System (HES) for submission of CAA application and annual report forms
The CAA is pleased to report that the majority of these indicators for improved performance were implemented and re-assessed between 2008 and 2010.
Future Feedback from Programs & Stakeholders
The CAA will continue to seek programs' feedback on an ongoing basis, to ensure that the academic accreditation program offered by the CAA is of the highest quality and not only meets, but exceeds programs' needs and expectations. As part of the Accreditation Quality Management System, a more comprehensive evaluation process (e.g., customer satisfaction surveys) will occur every 3–4 years. You can view the most recent results summary online.
Feedback may be provided at anytime to the Accreditation Office at firstname.lastname@example.org.