ASHA's academic accreditation program adopted a formalized Quality Management System in 2005. This system includes seeking feedback from relevant accreditation stakeholders, namely CAA-accredited audiology and speech-language pathology programs.
CAA Customer Satisfaction Survey 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, survey results indicated the following:
Accreditation Materials
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 Web site 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 Web site 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 for CAA Focus in 2007 and 2008
The number one value of the CAA accreditation program, that gives the most benefit, as identified by 64% of respondents, is 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 2007 and 2008, as part of their ongoing commitment to quality. These areas include:
- complete revision of the candidacy application and process;
- easier access by programs to expected timelines and greater adherence by CAA to those published timelines;
- training of new site visitors and re-training/calibration sessions for current site visitors;
- more/clearer guidance to programs as to what the CAA is seeking in order to demonstrate standards compliance (as offered through upcoming CAA webinars);
- streamlining of the Application and Annual Report form;
- implementation of an online application and annual report process through the Higher Education Data System (HES), that will eliminate many of the previous problems with faculty data collection and table formatting, redundancy of information collected, and re-entering of same data from year to year (e.g., through use of pre-population).
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.
|