What are the CAA’s expectations for documenting compliance with a standard?

When CAA members assess a program’s compliance with accreditation standards, they closely follow the Requirements for Review listed under each standard. If policies or procedures are required, the program should expect to provide a copy to the CAA. However, having a new policy or procedure on its own may not be sufficient. The CAA would expect to see evidence of implementation, dissemination, communication, and other appropriate documentation.

Here are a few examples to demonstrate how the CAA sets expectations for documenting compliance.

Scenario #1

The CAA cites a program for having an outdated strategic plan (Standard 1.5). The program has indicated that the new provost is spearheading a university-wide review of strategic goals and that updates at the department and program level are pending. Although the program shares a draft of the program’s strategic plan, this is not sufficient to be in compliance with this standard. The Requirements for Review for Standard 1.5 provide guidance about making sure the program’s long-term goals are on par with those of the institution, are measurable, are evaluated periodically, and are disseminated to appropriate stakeholders.

Scenario #2

A program was cited under Standard 3.1 for curricular deficiencies. The program advises the CAA that a new course to address limitations in its curriculum has been proposed. Proposing a course to address the identified issue is not sufficient to document compliance. The CAA is likely to ask further questions and for more documentation to ensure the proposed course becomes integrated into the curriculum as expected:

• Is the new course approved and faculty assigned?
• When will the new course be integrated into the curriculum?
• What is the program’s plan to address the deficiency until the course is officially offered?
• How are students being notified of the new course and whether it is an elective or required?
• How has the program updated its tracking forms and mechanisms to reflect the new course, related knowledge, and skill areas?
• And so forth…

In both scenarios, the program has responded with appropriate plans to address CAA’s citation with a simple, straightforward solution. However, if the solution is not implemented, this may not be sufficient to meet CAA’s expectations as outlined in the Standards for Accreditation [PDF]. It also is important to keep in mind, highlighted in the second example, how one change can have a ripple effect onto other standards.

Related Resources:

• Standards for Accreditation [PDF]
• Documentation Guidance [PDF]
• Standards Compliance Trends

How does the CAA use nondiscrimination statements to verify compliance with standards?

Through Standard 1.8, the CAA expects programs to address policies and procedures that they use to ensure equitable treatment for all students, faculty, staff, and persons served in the program’s clinics. Although several protected classes are listed in the standard, the program and institution do NOT need to use the exact wording as stipulated in CAA’s standard for its nondiscrimination statement. The CAA determined that not every protected class has to be included in the statement—as long as the program can demonstrate that it does not discriminate against any of the listed categories, as applicable.

The focus of the standard is not simply that a statement is in place but that (1) all constituents are treated equitably and (2) the institution and program are complying with all applicable laws, regulations, and executive orders. The program must carry out these intents (see Items 1 and 2 above) in related procedures and protocols. The program must be able to document how it communicates expectations, policies, and procedures or how it provides education for all concerned.

 

Related Resource

CAA Standards for Accreditation – Standard 1.8 [PDF]

What is the difference between accreditation and certification?

Simply put, accreditation is about programs, and certification is about individuals.

The focus of accreditation, which is operated by the Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology (CAA), is to ensure the educational quality of academic programs. Through its Standards for Accreditation, its policies, and its procedures, the CAA evaluates and monitors graduate degree programs in the United States that prepare entry-level practitioners in the professions of audiology and in speech-language pathology. The CAA publishes the list of graduate education programs that meet CAA’s Standards for Accreditation, including accredited and candidate (pre-accredited) degree programs to help inform and protect students and the public.

The focus of certification, operated by the Council for Clinical Certification in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology (CFCC), is to promote excellence in the practice of the professions of audiology and speech-language pathology. It accomplishes this through developing and implementing standards, awarding the Certificate of Clinical Competence (CCC) to individuals who meet those standards, and protecting and informing the public by recognizing individuals who meet the certification standards. The CCC designation demonstrates clinical skills and knowledge for independent practice as a speech-language pathologist (CCC-SLP) or as an audiologist (CCC-A) in all primary employment settings, including schools, hospitals, clinics, and private practice. The certification program is developed for practitioners throughout the United States.

At times, people get confused between (a) what the CAA expects in its standards and (b) what is expected of CAA program graduates who choose to seek certification (i.e., CCC-A, CCC-SLP). Although the CAA and CFCC use some of the same foundational documents to develop curricular expectations as well as knowledge and skills (e.g., Practice and Curriculum Analysis), the activities of these two councils are independent of one another.

The following chart provides an example of some standards requirements that are specific to either the CAA or specific to the CFCC. Academic program faculty and graduates who choose to apply for certification have a responsibility to understand the CAA and CFCC standards as well as additional state credentialing requirements. For further assistance, see the links below.

Examples of Standards Content	CAA Accreditation1	CFCC Certification2
Includes curriculum (academic and clinical) requirements	X
Includes knowledge and skills expectations		X
Requires applicants to complete a statistics course		X
Requires applicants to complete prerequisite courses		X
Requires clinical educators/supervisors/preceptors to have CCC		X
Requires academic and clinical educators to have appropriate degree and qualifications	X
Requires direct supervision of at least 25% of the speech-language pathology student's total contact with each client/patient		X
Requires the program to track student progress in a format determined by the program	X

Since 1994, graduation from a CAA-accredited or candidate program in the United States has been required of applicants for the CCC-A or CCC-SLP.

Related Pages

• About the CAA
• ASHA Certification
• State Licensing Laws and Teacher Certification

 
[1] Date of last major standards revision (accreditation): August 2017.
[2] Dates of last major standards revisions (certification): 2012 (audiology), 2014 (speech-language pathology), 2020 Pending (audiology, speech-language pathology).

How will CAA use the Guidance on Developing Quality Interprofessional Education for the Health Professions related to programs’ activities for IPE?

The Health Professions Accreditors Collaborative (HPAC) and the National Center for Interprofessional Practice and Education released Guidance on Developing Quality Interprofessional Education for the Health Professions  [PDF] in February 2019. The guidance was developed through a multiyear, multiphase consensus process aimed at supporting the development and implementation of quality interprofessional education (IPE). The CAA is pleased to have been a part of the development of this resource for institutional leaders, programs and faculty, and accreditation agencies and volunteers.

The guidance document is intended to foster increased communication and collaboration between educators in various professions and to provide guidance on achieving quality IPE. The document

• offers consensus terminology and definitions for IPE and related concepts;
• encourages institutional leaders to develop a systematic approach to foster IPE in their own institutions and, where appropriate, collaborate with academic institutions, health systems, and community partners;
• suggests a framework for leaders and faculty to develop a plan for quality IPE; and
• provides opportunities for HPAC member accreditation boards/commissions to use the guidance to assess their IPE standards and to train site teams regarding the essential elements of high-quality IPE. [1]

The CAA views this document as a resource to support programs in their preparation of graduate students in audiology and in speech-language pathology as professionals, regardless of clinical externship or practice settings. It is not intended to replace or subsume CAA’s accreditation standards related to IPE, nor will site visitors be directed to consider programs’ IPE plans solely on the basis of recommendations from this document.

The CAA expects programs to be engaged in IPE ultimately to realize the success of their graduates in interprofessional collaborative practice (IPP). For a program, the advantage of using a multidisciplinary, collaborative guidance document as a basis for its own implementation and practice of IPE is that it can facilitate an organized and systematic approach that is consistent with the goals, objectives, and procedures used by other health professions in the training of their students. Such consistency of terminology, focus, process, and assessment across the health professions will help facilitate students’ use of IPP beyond their training and is, itself, a working example of IPP.

 

Related Resources

• Ask the CAA: Should our program include IPE/IPP in our academic and clinical curriculum?
• CAA Standards for Accreditation [PDF]—Standards 3.1 A, 3.4A, 3.1B

[1] Source: https://healthprofessionsaccreditors.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/HPACGuidance02-01-19.pdf

What are recommended strategies to collect employment data from graduates?

The CAA requires accredited programs to annually report student achievement data in three areas—program completion, Praxis examination performance, and employment of graduates in the professions. The CAA uses these data to support assessment of a program’s effectiveness.

For reporting employment data, programs should include graduates who are employed in the profession or who are pursuing further education in the profession within 1 year of graduation. The CAA expects programs to report employment data on ALL graduates from the prior year, as stated in Standard 1.9, as well as to meet the CAA-established threshold for this student outcome measure in Standard 5.7.

Programs should make every effort to use all possible mechanisms to collect this data, including but NOT limited to the following:

• Alumni surveys
• Exit interviews
• Use of program director sign-off on certification applications, state licensure forms, or other national credentials to include the opportunity to query for employment status or future education
• Research of graduates’ records in the ASHA certification/membership database
• Research through state licensure boards to identify employment of graduates
• Other creative means or incentives by which to collect this data on program graduates

If your program uses an innovative technique or successful mechanism to collect employment data on graduates, and if you are willing to share it, please contact accreditation@asha.org.

See the CAA Resources page for more information.

The CAA has identified program completion rates as an outcome measure that addresses the quality of the program’s success with respect to student achievement. Further, the CAA believes that program completion rates reflect multiple facets of program effectiveness. When students complete a program within the program’s specified time frame, it suggests that the program’s admissions process was effective, that required course work was offered on a sufficiently regular basis, and that the program provided sufficient clinical education opportunities.

Please note: As of March 1, 2018, the CAA is applying an updated formula for calculating program completion rates for its decisions on accreditation reports. The changes also are reflected in the worksheet for programs when reporting these student outcome data to the CAA. 

Completion Time Frames – Program Tracks

The CAA allows for programs to establish separate time frames for students to complete the program for those enrolled in different tracks, including full-time, part-time, or when the program is offered via different modalities.

A student should be counted as completing “on time” if the student graduates within the published time frame for the appropriate component of the program.

Terms of Student Enrollment

The CAA interprets the published time frame as the number of terms an individual student was actually enrolled in the program. The terms do not have to be consecutive, but the total number of terms must meet the program’s expected time frame for completion. University-approved leaves of absences (e.g., for reasons of health, maternity/paternity, mission work, military assignment) do not count toward the number of terms a student was enrolled in the program.

Program Completion Data

The CAA requires programs to report on the completion status of all students in the accredited or candidate program. The numbers of students who complete the program on time, students who complete the program later than expected, and students who do not complete the program for academic and clinical progress or reasons having to do with program quality factor into the formula the CAA has developed to determine a program’s on-time completion rate.

Students taking longer or who have left the program for reasons related to academic or clinical progress (e.g., insufficient course offerings, remediation, academic integrity, dismissal) cannot be considered as meeting on-time completion expectations.

Students taking longer or who have left the program for reasons unrelated to program quality (e.g., personal, financial, relocation) or for reasons unrelated to the program, faculty and staff, or academic or clinical curriculum will not count toward the 3-year average program completion rate.

The CAA has developed a worksheet to guide programs in providing and calculating discrete data about student completion for the 3-year reporting period.

The CAA revised its interpretation of the elements for calculating program completion rates in July 2017 as a result of recommendations from the CAA’s Working Group on Audiology Program Completion Rates. The Working Group, which was composed of CAA members and CAA-accredited academic program representatives, recommended—and the CAA subsequently approved—that the CAA-established threshold for program completion rates only applies to measures of program quality (e.g., students not completing on time or dropping out for reasons that reflect on the quality of the program) versus personal factors (e.g., financial, relocation, change in life situation) external to the program that do not reflect on the quality of the program. The updated formula, which applies to both audiology and speech-language pathology programs, was implemented March 1, 2018, for CAA’s decisions on accreditation reports. Programs may be asked for additional information related to program completion rates if needed.

Calculating Three-Year Rates

The CAA calculates three-year rates using raw data for the three-year interval reported by a program in its current accreditation report in order to assess compliance with the CAA-established thresholds for program completion, Praxis examination pass rates, and graduate employment rates. This protocol is in accordance with best practices in mathematics and statistical analysis. It is expected that programs use the same practice to calculate the three-year averages for these student achievement measures. Averaging the three annual percentages is not an appropriate method to determine the three-year averages in order to demonstrate the program’s ability to meet the CAA-established benchmarks for the student achievement measures.

The CAA does not require programs to post three-year averages as part of the data that must be presented on the program’s website for student achievement. However, when posted the data must be accurate.

Additional Resources

• Student Achievement Measures
• Presenting Student Achievement Data
• Program Completion Rate Calculator Worksheet