|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Help Center | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
National Accrediting
773.714.8880
info@naacls.org |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Dr. NAACLS |
|
Dr. NAACLS
Advice for Accredited and Approved Programs
|
Dear Dr. NAACLS:
My program has just been awarded initial accreditation! However, the award says
that I must submit a progress report on Standards 18, 19, 20 and 21 - the
program evaluation Standards. What should I be doing to meet those Standards?
Sincerely,
New Program Director
Dear New Program Director:
Accreditation reviews analyze your program at a specific point in time. The day
after your review, you might have a change in personnel, or an affiliate site
may close, or the biggest employer of your graduates calls and says, "We are
looking for employees with a little more emphasis in chemistry." Change is
constant, but the accreditation review is once every five to seven years.
NAACLS requires notification when a new program director takes over or
affiliates change, but NAACLS does not review curriculum revisions or the new
student handbook until the next review. NAACLS expects the program to evaluate
those changes. In fact, NAACLS expects the program to evaluate the program as a
whole, even if there have not been changes. The Standards addressing program
evaluation assure quality education in an ever-changing environment.
There must be a mechanism for continually and systematically reviewing the
effectiveness of the program to include survey and evaluation instruments that
incorporate feedback from a combination of students, employers, faculty,
graduates, exit or final examinations, and accreditation review. (Standard 18)
Breaking this Standard to components, there needs to be a mechanism, which is
generally considered a formal, written process, that is both continuous and
systematic. Continuous is often a difficulty; there is no way to meet this
Standard a month before your Self-Study, as it should have been a regular part
of running the program. Systematic is that it should be formalized and cover
different components of the program. As a helpful tip, any areas where there
have been recent changes should be components covered. Finally, it should gather
data from a variety of sources.
Standards 19 and 20 require that outcomes measures from the previous three
active years are documented, analyzed and used in the program evaluation.
Standard 19 specifically mentions external certification exam pass rates, but
gives alternative options for programs where many students opt not to take those
exams. Capstone projects, mock certification exams and other activities can also
be accepted as addressing Standard 19. Standard 20 requires graduation and
placement rates to be included. For both Standards 19 and 20, the requirement
for data from the previous three active years means that a year or two of
inactivity may require data from four to five years previous.
Finally, Standard 21 requires, ".results of program evaluations must be
documented and reflected in ongoing curriculum development and program
modification, followed by an analysis of the effectiveness of any changes
implemented." The result of the program evaluations must first be documented.
Then, they must be reflected in ongoing curriculum development and program
modification. Then, any changes must be analyzed for effectiveness. This is a
continuous loop, where evaluation leads to changes, which leads to evaluation of
those changes. It satisfies the Standard if your analysis of a change's
effectiveness was that it was not effective, so you changed it back!
I spoke too soon. It would only satisfy the Standard if you documented it. What
you should be doing to meet these Standards, then, is gathering a wide variety
of data, reviewing the data in a continuous and systematic manner, looking for
areas to improve the program, evaluating the changes you make, and documenting
all of the above! Dr. Cearlock, CEO, recommends the strategy of having this
process be built into an annual schedule, with gathering and analyzing
certification scores in one month, surveying of employers of graduates another
month, tracking placement of each graduating class six months after their
graduation, and an annual meeting of an advisory committee dedicated to
reviewing the evaluation data and developing strategies for improvement!
There is no other grouping of Standards more closely related to the long-term
viability of a NAACLS program than Standards 18-21, and programs that are cited
for marginal compliance or non-compliance in these Standards are historically
the most likely programs to withdraw accreditation, either by request or
involuntarily. It makes sense that this is true; while any citation is an
indication that there is an issue in the program, a citation on the program
evaluation Standards is an indication that the program might not be addressing
issues in an effective or consistent manner.
Thank you,
Dr. NAACLS
| Archives |
|
|
|
Copyright © 2008 National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Sciences. All rights reserved. Comments or suggestions to the site editor. |
|