Volume 98 - Spring 2008	Download

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
 

Top of the News
			CEO's Corner NAACLS Responds to Program Director Turnover by Dianne Cearlock, PhD Chief Executive Officer
			President's Report Turtle Moments by Cheryl Caskey, MA, CLS, CLSplH(NCA) President, Board of Directors
Features
			NAACLS Participates in CCCLW Strategic Planning Conference by Paula Garrott, EdM, CLS(NCA) ASCLS Representative to NAACLS Board of Directors
			New Phlebotomy Approval Process Launched By Wendy Miller, MS, CLS(NCA), MT(ASCP)SI, Chair, Programs Approval Review Committee (PARC) and Marcia Armstrong, MS, MT(ASCP by Wendy Miller, MS, CLS(NCA), MT(ASCP)SI & Marcia Armstrong, MS, MT(ASCP), CLS(NCA) Chair, Programs Approval Review Committee (PARC) & Past Chair, Programs Approval Review Committee (P
Other News
			Dr. NAACLS Advice for Accredited and Approved Programs
			Education Methodologies Workshop Serves 80 Participants
			Spring/Summer 2008 Site Visits

	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