Academy, ABA, SAA, and ACAE Comment on CAA Standards for Accreditation
In September 2011, the Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology (CAA) requested comments on proposed edits to the current Standards for Accreditation of Graduate Education Programs in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology. In October, the Academy responded to the CAA’s request, submitting consolidated comments on behalf of the Academy, the American Board of Audiology (ABA), the Accreditation Commission for Audiology Education (ACAE) and the Student Academy of Audiology (SAA). View the Academy’s consolidated response:
Response to:Peer Review of Standards for Accreditation and Implementation Language (Council on Academic Accreditation, CAA)
Consolidated response from:
The American Academy of Audiology
The American Board of Audiology
The Accreditation Commission for Audiology
Education The Student Academy of Audiology
Standards 1.6, 1.7:
In preparation for criteria changes that probably will be made in the US Department of Education (USDE) or have been made in the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), the proposed changes in these standards appear to support these new external criteria with increased internal interpretation plus more detailed wording than what existed before, specifically, Standard 1.6. Regarding Standard 1.7, everyone must comply with this new emphasis, since USDE and CHEA require it.
Standard Part 3.1a - Page 4, 1st paragraph (Side by Side Review)
The program must ensure that students have had opportunities to acquire the knowledge and skills needed for entry into independent professional practice across the range of practice settings (including but not limited to hospitals, schools, private practice, community speech and hearing centers, and industry) and to qualify for those state and national credentials required for independent professional practice that are relevant to the program’s purpose and goals.
There are no ‘national’ credentials required for independent practice. The requirement for independent practice is state licensure and is defined within each state.
Recommendation: Remove ‘and national credentials’ and insert ‘licensure’ after ‘state’.
Standard 3.1a - Page 4, 3rd paragraph
The program must demonstrate that it provides a breadth and depth of opportunities so that students are able to obtain a variety of supervised clinical experiences in different work settings with different populations sufficient to enter independent professional practice.
We have no problem with the elimination of a specified minimum number of hours for supervised clinical experiences. Hours should be specified in state licensure and each training program should ensure that students are achieving an adequate number of contact hours and sufficient time in clinical rotations to satisfy licensure requirements for any state - or whichever state/s they choose to target.
(General Comment: Overall, standards 5.1 and 5.3 reflect changes that need to be made for the external agencies.)
Standard 5.1 – Page 10
Summative Assessment—comprehensive evaluation of learning outcomes, including acquisition of knowledge and skills, at the culmination of an educational experience (e.g.,course, program)
Consider inclusion of a specified period of time for summative assessments, specifically an annual examination (not simply ‘at the culmination’) which would ensure a more comparative environment across students.
Standard 5.3 – Page 11, Last bullet
Praxis examination pass rate— program graduates passing the Praxis examination. Documentation must include the number and percentage of program graduates for each of the three most recently completed academic years;
Eliminate reference to the specific ‘Praxis’ examination and insert ‘national examination’ for a more universal standard and to avoid branding of any one national examination.