In 2016, the CAA completed 36 accreditation application reviews of graduate academic programs (9 clinical doctoral programs in audiology, 27 master’s programs in speech-language pathology), including reviews of applications for candidacy. Additionally, the CAA reviewed 10 annual reports referred for probation, and 15 end-of-probation reports.
The CAA also reviewed annual reports from 181 graduate academic programs (42 clinical doctoral programs in audiology, 139 masters programs in speech-language pathology).
The CAA’s 2016 accreditation reviews resulted in the following accreditation decisions:
- 27 programs were re-accredited for an 8-year cycle
- 2 programs were awarded initial accreditation for a 5-year cycle
- 6 programs were awarded candidacy
- 1 program was placed on probation as a result of an application for continued accreditation review
- 7 programs were placed on probation as a result of an annual report review
- 12 programs were removed from probation and accreditation continued
- 3 programs were continued on probation
- 181 programs were approved for continued accreditation on the basis of an annual report review
Accreditation status decisions (e.g., award accreditation, place on probation) are made public in accordance with the CAA’s Public Notice of Accreditation Actions policy. CAA’s policy and descriptions of those decisions can be found in the Accreditation Handbook—Chapter XII: Informing the Public.
Most Frequently Cited Standards
Initial and Continued Accreditation Application Reviews
The areas (standards) the CAA most frequently cited for program noncompliance or partial compliance in 2016 as the result of initial and re-accreditation application reviews included:
- Current, accurate, and readily available public information about the program and/or institution, including accurate student outcome measures, accreditation statement, and other program information (Standard 1.7)
- Overall faculty, including research-qualified doctoral faculty, and workload assignments are sufficient to meet program mission (Standard 2.2)
- Program assessment of student performance; development and implementation of remediation guidelines (Standard 5.1)
- Ongoing assessments of program effectiveness and use of results for program improvement; 3-year average program completion rate below CAA-established threshold (Standard 5.3)
- Accessibility and safety of physical facilities (Standard 6.2)
Of note, there were 16 graduate academic programs that received no citations (e.g., no areas of noncompliance, no areas of partial compliance, and no areas for follow-up) as a result of their initial or re-accreditation application reviews in 2016.
Annual Report Reviews
The areas (standards) the CAA most frequently cited for program noncompliance or partial compliance in 2016 as the result of annual report reviews included:
- The program develops and implements a long-term strategic plan (Standard 1.3)
- The program provides information about the program and the institution to students and to the public that is current, accurate, and readily available, including accurate student outcome measures, accreditation statement, and other program information (Standard 1.7)*
- The number of full-time doctoral-level faculty in speech-language pathology, audiology, and speech, language, and hearing sciences and other full- and part-time faculty is sufficient to meet the teaching, research, and service needs of the program and the expectations of the institution (Standard 2.2)
- Curriculum prepares students for full depth and breadth of scope of practice in speech-language pathology; opportunity for acquisition of knowledge and skills in speech-language pathology (Standard 3.1B)
- Ongoing assessments of program effectiveness and use of results for program improvement, including meeting CAA-established thresholds for program completion rate, Praxis examination pass rate, and employment rate (Standard 5.3)
*As was the case in 2015, over half of the programs submitting annual reports for CAA review in 2016 were cited for partial or non-compliance under Standard 1.7. Of the citations for partial and non-compliance under Standard 1.7, the majority were split between “inaccuracy of accreditation statement” and “incomplete and inaccurate student achievement data.” Remaining citations under Standard 1.7 included accuracy of other public information about the program, as well as accessibility of program information.
Also of note, there were 32 graduate academic programs that received no citations (e.g., no areas of noncompliance, no areas of partial compliance, and no areas for follow-up) as a result of their annual report reviews in 2016.