In a surprising development Monday (Dec 13, 2004) the U.S. Department of Education's National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (the "Committee") encouraged the audiology profession to develop a new accrediting body for audiology doctoral programs. The NACIQI is a body comprised of 14 university presidents, chancellors, and administrators who review accreditation programs on behalf of the U.S. DOE.
In Fall 2002, the Committee reviewed the accreditation program of the ASHA Council on Academic Accreditation (CAA). After review, the Secretary of Education granted continued recognition to the CAA but requested the agency submit an interim report by December, 2003 demonstrating that the CAA has established distinctive curricular requirements that distinguish between master's and doctoral degree programs in audiology.
The CAA submitted their report and the Committee reviewed it at an open meeting in Washington, DC on Monday, December 13, 2004. The revised standard submitted by the CAA to the Department of Education was the current audiology KASA certification requirements. The CAA has made the KASA certification requirements the new Accreditation Standard 3.1.
CAA chair, Dr. Michael Moran, testified along with vice chair for audiology, Dr. Dennis Burrows, and ASHA staffer Dr. Vic Gladstone. They explained that these competencies define those needed for doctoral entry to the audiology profession.
Third party testimony was provided by AAA president, Dr. Richard Gans and past-presidents, Dr. Angela Loavenbruck representing the ACAE, and Dr. Barry Freeman, representing five Au.D. programs that provided a written response to the Committee expressing university concerns about the CAA process.
Third party testimony focused on the abdication of two key components of the CAA standards to the clinical certification board of ASHA. It was explained to the committee that the Knowledge and Skills in Standard 3.1 were based on data from the 1988 ASHA Skills Validation Study to define the scope of practice for audiologists in the late 1980s when the entry-level for practice was a master's degree. They were not developed by the CAA to differentiate between master's and doctoral training, they were copied directly from the ASHA certification document, they will be monitored by the certification board, and they do not meet the rigors required for doctoral level training.
Additional third party testimony also focused on the abdication of responsibility for defining and monitoring the competencies of doctoral faculty and supervisors to the ASHA Clinical Certification Board. The DOE Committee learned that CAA requires audiology programs to prepare graduates for ASHA certification as a condition of accreditation. The certification board requires supervisors to have ASHA certification. Not using certified supervisors would jeopardize a program's accreditation according to a former chair of the CAA. The CAA depends on the Certification Board to monitor this aspect of the accreditation standards. Yet, it was explained, that more than 50% of audiologists no longer purchase the certificate and this is creating a strain on universities to find diverse clinical placements for students at facilities with certified audiologists. It also was explained that the CAA has worked with the ASHA Certification Board to now permit doctoral level research faculty to acquire clinical hours towards certification by awarding hours "for assessment and treatment, that is done in the context of clinical research." These doctoral level research faculty can then be pressed into service as clinical preceptors to assure that students are supervised by individuals with ASHA certification while licensed experienced audiologists who choose not to renew their ASHA certification are excluded.
In responding to the CAA request for approval, one US DOE Committee Member described the ASHA and the CAA as equivalent to a "medieval guild" requiring its laborers to pay a fee if they want to work. Committee members expressed serious concerns about the quality, relevance, and rigor of the standards. It was noted that "certification is not the central issue, but an indicator of the problems we are seeing with this accreditation agency."
When asked by the Committee the cost of certification, Drs. Moran and Gladstone stated that they did not have this information because the CAA is autonomous and independent of the certification program. One Committee member responded that he understood that the fee was $200 and, therefore, this is a $22 million dollar program that CAA is trying to protect for ASHA. As the Committee Chair noted, the CAA is not autonomous, "there is a relationship and links." Further, one committee member noted that the profession appears to have progressed beyond the CAA.
A vote to accept the CAA report and revised standards was defeated 8-4. The Committee continued to deliberate and finally agreed to accept the report with the provision that the ASHA CAA submit a follow-up report on standards to distinguish between master's and doctoral training and with the inclusion of a report on how the CAA assesses the quality of faculty and clinical supervisors. The Committee, in their remarks, strongly encouraged Dr. Loavenbruck to continue her work in the development of a new audiology accreditation body that can be more responsive to the needs of training programs and their students then is currently offered by the CAA.
Submitted by:
Barry A. Freeman, Ph.D.
Chair and Professor
Audiology Department
Nova Southeastern University
3200 So. University Drive
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33328
Phone: 954 262 7717
Fax: 954 262 1181
email: freemanb@nova.edu
web: www.nova.edu/aud
'Department of Education (DOE) encourages audiology to develop new accreditation body...'
Share:
