Volume 80 - Winter 2002	Download

CEO's Corner The Process of Self-Assessment by Olive M. Kimball, PhD, EdD Chief Executive Officer

Program Directors often lament the processes entailed in a Self-Study but more often than not are appreciative of the results. NAACLS requires programs to carry out this process on a regular basis, as do all accrediting bodies. The Self-Study provides an opportunity that might not otherwise be recognized in the busy-ness of everyday efforts.

While accrediting bodies require this regular self-assessment, so do the bodies that recognize accrediting agencies, the United States Department of Education (USDE) and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). NAACLS previously participated in the process for USDE recognition and was so recognized, although we have now voluntarily relinquished that recognition. NAACLS is continuing the process of recognition by CHEA, a private, non-governmental agency of leaders in higher education.

In doing so, we were required in January to submit our own Self-Study. It was an interesting and introspective process. As one who advocates strongly that program directors include many significant others in the development of the document, I needed to be sure that it was possible to include significant others such as stakeholders in development of the NAACLS document.

Input was garnered from numerous sources. And so it was that the NAACLS Self-Study for CHEA directly reflected input received from Strategic Planning sessions, the Futures Conference, open hearings for recent Standards revisions, and Task Forces established for various anticipated policy changes. We also included results from the 1997 confidential survey of program and medical directors and were aware of more recent surveys of deans and program directors about attitudes toward accreditation in general.

We were required to address and document that we met several standards that CHEA requires. They included:

• Advancing academic quality
• Demonstrating accountability
• Encouraging purposeful change
• Employing appropriate and fair procedures
• Continually reassessing practices

A recent survey was completed in Fall 2001 by Sarah Baker of Indiana University School of Medicine. She is a faculty member in radiological sciences and completed a study of deans and directors of allied health programs, including CLS/CLT programs in academic institutions. She found that both deans and program directors agree with the overall purpose of specialized accreditation as a vehicle for improving programs. There was appreciation for the benefits resulting from the periodic self-evaluation required by the Self-Study. However, it was concluded that there was room for improvement in both the Self-Study and peer review processes but neither group believed that the effectiveness of specialized accreditation would be enhanced by using professional evaluator teams. Deans were clearly in greater support of reform, especially in seeking increased coordination among Accreditors of allied health programs. This has also been a continuing goal of the Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions.

NAACLS continues to encourage joint site visits with other accreditation agencies, just as we encourage coordinated visits where institutions have multi-level programs. We also encourage joint visits of programs that are within the same geographic location. However, the usual reply has been that program directors want the identity of a singular program visit with its accompanying institutional focus and feel that they lose identity when joint visits are planned.

In this economic climate and for the future, we, both NAACLS and program directors, need to foster joint visits and make them as significant to programs as a singular one. Let's foster this idea and work to make it a reality. Deans may have ideas and we should encourage them, but input from program directors and faculty is critical.

NAACLS has learned from its recent Self-Study that, as an accrediting agency, it is indeed flexible; it wants to be of service to programs as much as it wants to assure a level of quality. NAACLS needs your continued input and you may be assured that it will be carefully considered. Let us hear from you.

For information about the survey mentioned, contact Sarah Baker, Ed.D. R.T. r FASRT, Radiologic Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, Clinical 120, 541 Clinical Dr., Indianapolis, IN 46202-5111.

Top of the News
			Improve Program Quality by Developing Instructional Objectives by Charles W. Ford, PhD APRC Committee Member
			NAACLS Board Appoints a Task Force by Joeline D. Davidson, MBA, CLS(NCA), MT(ASCP) Past President, NAACLS Board of Directors
			Request for Nominations
			Revised Standards Are Available at www.naacls.org
			Upcoming NAACLS Board and Committee Meeting Dates
			www.naacls.org by Mark Erickson NAACLS Computer Information Systems and Program Coordinator
Features
			CEO's Corner The Process of Self-Assessment by Olive M. Kimball, PhD, EdD Chief Executive Officer
			Dear Dr. NAACLS New Standards and Self-Studies
			Dear Dr. NAACLS Inactive status and billing
			President's Report What Are Our Roles? by Kathy Waller, PhD, CLS(NCA) President, NAACLS Board of Directors
			Programs to be Site Visited Spring / Summer 2002 Cycle

	Select an Issue   Vol 109 - Fall 2011 Vol 108 - Summer 2011 Vol 107 - Spring 2011 Vol 106 - Volume 106 - Fall NAACLS News Vol 105 - Summer 2010 Vol 104 - Spring 2010 NAACLS News Vol 103 - Fall 2009 NAACLS News Vol 102 - Summer 2009 Vol 101 - Spring 2009 Vol 100 - Winter 2008 Vol 99 - Summer 2008 Vol 98 - Spring 2008 Vol 97 - Winter 2007 Vol 96 - Summer 2007 Vol 95 - Spring 2007 Vol 94 - Winter 2006 Vol 93 - Spring/Summer 2006 Vol 92 - Special Edition Vol 91 - Winter 2005 Vol 90 - Fall 2005 Vol 89 - Spring/Summer 2005 Vol 87 - Fall 2004 Vol 86 - Spring/Summer 2004 Vol 85 - Fall 2003 Vol 84 - Spring/Summer 2003 Vol 83 - Winter 2003 Vol 82 - Fall 2002 Vol 81 - Spring / Summer 2002 Vol 80 - Winter 2002 Vol 79 - Fall 2001 Vol 78 - Spring / Summer 2001 Vol 77 - Winter 2001 Vol 76 - Fall 2000 Vol 75 - Spring / Summer 2000 Vol 74 - Winter 2000 Vol 73 - Fall 1999 Vol 72 - Spring / Summer 1999 Vol 71 - Winter 1999 Vol 70 - Fall 1998 Vol 69 - Spring / Summer 1998 Vol 68 - Winter 1998 Vol 67 - Fall 1997 Vol 66 - Spring 1997 Vol 65 - Winter 1996 Vol 64 - Summer 1996 Vol 63 - Spring 1996 Vol 62 - Winter 1996 Vol 61 - Summer 1995 Vol 60 - Spring 1995 Vol 59 - Fall 1994 Vol 58 - Summer 1994 Vol 57 - Spring 1994 Vol 56 - Fall 1993 Vol 55 - Summer 1993 Vol 54 - Spring 1993 Vol 53 - Fall 1992 Vol 52 - Summer 1992 Vol 51 - Spring 1992 Vol 50 - Fall 1991 Vol 49 - Summer 1991 Vol 48 - Spring 1991 Vol 47 - Fall 1990 Vol 46 - Summer 1990 Vol 45 - Spring 1990 Vol 44 - Fall 1989 Vol 43 - Summer 1989 Vol 42 - Winter 1989 Vol 41 - Fall 1988 Vol 40 - April 1988 Vol 39 - December 1987 Vol 38 - September 1987 Vol 37 - Spring 1987 Vol 36 - Winter 1987 Vol 35 - October 1986 Vol 34 - November 1985 Vol 33 - November 1984 Vol 32 - July 1984 Vol 31 - November 1983 Vol 30 - November 1982 Vol 29 - November 1981 Vol 28 - December 1980 Vol 27 - August 1980 Vol 26 - September 1979 Vol 25 - August 1979 Vol 24 - June 1979 Vol 23 - February 1979 Vol 22 - October 1978 Vol 21 - July 1978 Vol 20 - April 1978 Vol 19 - October 1977 Vol 18 - July 1977 Vol 17 - April 1977 Vol 16 - February 1977 Vol 15 - November 1976 Vol 14 - September 1976 Vol 13 - June 1976 Vol 12 - December 1975 Vol 11 - October 1975 Vol 10 - August 1975 Vol 9 - July 1975 Vol 8 - June 1975 Vol 7 - April 1975 Vol 6 - February 1975 Vol 5 - December 1974 Vol 4 - November 1974 Vol 3 - September 1974 Vol 2 - August 1974 Vol 1 - June 1974