DEPARTMENT CHAIRS’ PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY PARTICIPATION IN ACCREDITATION ACTIVITIES: A FOLLOW-UP SURVEY

INTRODUCTION Purpose

The literature on the culture of higher education argues that university culture precludes administrators from using a participative style of management and predisposes faculty to be more committed to their areas of expertise than to the university. However, experts on accreditation conclude that successful accreditation outcomes are the result of collaboration among faculty and administrators. According to a recent study the manager administrator is the most important entity in achieving a successful accreditation outcome. The factors leading to success include Managers who c r creat ing e a supportive environment for their faculty, faculty are likely to have more positive accreditation outcomes. Managers with more years of experience , are likely to have more positive accreditation outcomes. Managers who have and experience writing written more self self-studies . I n contrast to the literature, faculty participation in accreditation activities was not shown to be a factor leading to success. are likely to have a faculty that supports the accreditation process. Finally, managers whose faculty support the accreditation process are likely to have more positive accreditation outcomes.

The purpose of this study was to explore physical therapy department chairs’ perceptions of the extent to which their faculty members participated in the activities leading to accreditation, and whether or not this participation was associated with accreditation outcome. This study was conducted and completed in 2004 as a follow-up to a previous study that explored the relationships among accreditation outcome and management style employed by the chair person, faculty participation in accreditation activities, faculty commitment to implementing the plans delineated in the accreditation documentation, and faculty support of the accreditation process. Specifically, the research questions for this study were:

1. Is there a difference between faculty members’ perceptions of their levels of participation in accreditation activities and department chairs’ perceptions of the same?
2. Is faculty participation in accreditation activities, as perceived by the department chair, associated with accreditation outcome?
3. Is management style associated with a difference between faculty perceptions of their levels of participation in accreditation activities and department chairs’ perceptions of the same?

Method ology

Population and Sample . The sample for this study included physical therapy department chairs who: a) completed the survey in 2001 about their program’s accreditation status/outcome; and b) had faculty members that completed a survey in 2001 about their participation in accreditation activities. Of the 74 department chairs meeting the inclusion criteria, 52 responded to the follow-up survey (70% return rate). Data collected from this sample were analyzed against data collected during the previous study. The population for that study was physical therapy program directors and faculty of those programs in the United States who had previously participated in the activities leading to accreditation. The sampling frame for this study was the list of accredited physical therapy programs in the United States provided by the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education ( CAPTE ) . CAPTE believed the list was accurate at the time of that study; however it only included 181 accredited programs, whereas the CAPTE on-line directory listed 193 accredited programs.

Research Design . This correlational study used data collected from three surveys. The first of these surveys was distributed to chairpersons of physical therapy programs (see Appendix A) . They were asked to complete an organizational questionnaire that depicted the accreditation history of their program. In addition to providing the accreditation status of the program, the completed survey contained information regarding number of full time equivalents, a seniority profile of the faculty, as well as their gender and personal administrative experience including number of years in current position and number of accreditation cycles completed as program director. The second survey was distributed to faculty members (see Appendix B) . In addition to providing the number of years of experience and their gender, they were asked to respond to questions regarding the style of management used by their manager, their level of participation in various accreditation activities, their commitment to the plans delineated in the accreditation documentation, and their support of the accreditation process. Each of the four variables (accreditation outcome, management style, faculty participation, and faculty commitment) was collected using multiple measures. The third survey was distributed to physical therapy chairpersons, and collect ed information about their perceptions of the levels at which their faculty participated in the activities leading to accreditation (see Appendix C) .

Instrumentation . Department chairpersons were asked to rate their levels of agreement with 15 statements regarding their faculty’s levels of participation in accreditation activities. Nine of the items were taken directly from the previous survey completed by faculty members. Six items were created to assist in exploring the validity of the other nine questions.

Findings

Research question 1. Is there a difference between faculty members’ perceptions of their levels of participation in accreditation activities and department chairs’ perceptions of the same? Department chairs’ perceptions of the extent to which their faculty members participated in the activities leading to accreditation is significantly greater than the faculty’s self-perceptions of the same (paired t-test: t_{critical (.001,49)} =3.265 t_observed=3.5730).

Research Question 2. Is faculty participation in accreditation activities, as perceived by the department chair, associated with accreditation outcome? Multiple linear regression of accreditation outcome onto management style, chair perception of faculty participation, CAPTE support, and commitment to implement plans yielded no statistically significant association between chair perception of faculty participation and accreditation outcome.

Research Question 3. Is management style associated with a difference between faculty perceptions of their levels of participation in accreditation activities and department chairs’ perceptions of the same? Pearson product moment correlations revealed no significant relationship between management style and a difference between faculty perceptions of their levels of participation in accreditation activities and department chairs ’ perceptions of the same.

Research Limitations The data for this study were collected from a sample of physical therapy programs having received program-specific accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE).

External validity, the extent to which the results can be generalized to other populations, setting, or activities, may have been limited by the degree to which graduate education in health care and its accreditation compare to others. Healthcare providers , having been trained in a profession that is the epitome of team building, that between patient and practitioner, may be predisposed to collaboration. As such, the findings of this study may not be readily generalized to other, non health-related populations of academicians.

Results of this study may further be limited by the absence of multiple methods for data collection. Both external and internal validity may be improved by including qualitative data collected from interviews and observation .

Practical Implications

This research contributes to the body of knowledge in management and higher education. Not only do faculty benefit from the findings of this research, but this study begins to fill the void of empirical research relating the results of faculty participation within the university. Furthermore, this study provides evidence associating management practices, faculty participation, and accreditation outcome. Lastly, the findings of this study should serve as an impetus for further research to extend the applicability to other populations and other external audit processes.

Importance

This study is of primary significance to department chairs , academic administrators, faculty, and accrediting or external audition agencies. For example, department chairs may seek to promote or discourage faculty participation in accreditation activities. Accrediting or external auditing agencies should find the results of this study beneficial as they seek to enhance their consultative roles with institutions of higher education .

References

Aguilu-Semidey E. The uses of accreditation. . Education: Harvard University; 1993:126.

Baldridge J. Academic Governance: Research on Institutional Politics and Decision Making. Berkeley, CA: McCutchen; 1971.

Baldridge JV, DV Curtis, G Ecker, GL Riley. Policy making and effective leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.; 1978:290.

Barker TS, HT Smith, Jr. Integrating accreditation into strategic planning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice. 1998;22:741-760.

Boucher B. Changing trends in program assessment in physical therapy education: Perceptions of program directors. Journal of Allied Health. 1999;28:165-173.

Buchholz RA. An empirical study of cotemporary beliefs about work in American society. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1978;63:219-227.

California Community Colleges Academic Senate. Faculty participation in accreditation. Sacramento: California Community Colleges; 1996:10.

Campbell DT, DW Fiske. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin. 1959;56:81-105.

Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education. CAPTE accreditation handbook. . 1111 North Fairfax Street, Alexandria, VA 22314: American Physical Therapy Association; 2000.

Fauser JJ. Accreditation of allied health education: Assessing for educational effectiveness. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1992;268:1123-1127.

Fuller B. A framework for academic planning. Journal of Higher Education. 1976;47:65-77.

Keller G. Academic strategy: The management revolution in American higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1983.

Likert R. Behavioral research: A guide for effective action. In: Likert R, Hayes SJ, eds. Some applications of behavioural research. Switzerland: UNESCO; 1957:333.

Likert R. New patterns of management. . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.; 1961:279.

Palola EG, W Padgett. Planning for self-renewal. . Berkeley: Center for Research and Development in Higher Education; 1971.

Peterson C. Management, faculty, and the accreditation outcomes: A survey of physical therapy faculty and program directors. Journal of Physical Therapy Education. 2003;17:22-31.

Schmidtlein FA. Responding to diverse institutional issues: Adapting strategic planning concepts. In: Schmidtlein FA, Milton TH, eds. Adapting Strategic Planning to Campus Realities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1990:83-93.

Southern Regional Education Board. The importance of consensus in determining educational standards in health and human services fields. . Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board; 1990:9.

Sporn B. Managing university culture: An analysis of the relationship between institutional culture and management approaches. Higher Education. 1996;32:41-61.

Appendix A

ITEMS FROM PROGRAM DIRECTOR QUESTIONNAIRE

1. When (month / year) did your program receive Initial Accreditation, as granted by CAPTE?

2. When (month / year) did your program receive its most recent CAPTE accreditation decision?

3. Following your most recent On-site Visit, what was CAPTE’s immediate decision?

§ Initial accreditation without progress reports

§ Initial accreditation with progress reports

§ Accreditation without progress reports

§ Accreditation with progress reports

§ Probation

§ Other:

4. Please rate (on a scale of 1-6; favorable-unfavorable) your perception of CAPTE’s most recent evaluation of your program, prior to your response.

If you were not required to submit progress reports, SKIP TO # 8

5. For approximately how many of the evaluative criteria were you required to demonstrate compliance beyond clarification?

6. Consider all of the evaluative criteria you counted above to answer Question 5 as you complete the following three questions. It is important that you attempt to complete this table from CAPTE’s perspective.

a. How many criteria were of serious consequence to program quality?

b. How many criteria were of moderate consequence to program quality?

c. How many criteria were of little or no consequence to program quality?

7. Compared to other PT programs, do you believe your program’s total number of criteria cited by CAPTE was:

• Significantly fewer than most
• Slightly fewer than most
• Average
• Slightly more than most
• Significantly more than most

8. How many students in total were enrolled in the program during the 2000-2001 academic year?

9. How many FTEs are currently budgeted for your program?

10. How many FTEs are currently filled in your program?

11. How many of your individual core program faculty members are classified as ³ 0.5 FTE?

12. Considering only the faculty who are classified as ³ 0.5 FTE (including yourself), answer the following questions:

a. How many faculty have (<1, 1-<2, 2-<5, ³5) years of teaching at the university level?

b. How many of faculty have earned their: BS; MA or MS; DPT; or PhD, EdD, or equivalent?

13. How many years total have you served as program director or chairperson of a Physical Therapy Program?

14. In your capacity as program director or chairperson how many Self-Studies have you prepared for CAPTE?

15. What is your gender? Male, Female

Appendix 2

ITEMS FROM FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE

Exclusion Criteria

• On sabbatical
• Employed at less than 0.5 FTE
• Functioning as Co-, Interim-, or Assistant Program Director

Questionnaire Items (rated on a scale of 1-4)

The Program Director:

1. Makes program-related decisions independent of faculty input

2. Commends creativity even when unsuccessful.

3. Encourages communication among all members throughout the program

4. Maximizes the utilization of expertise existing throughout the program.

5. Makes an example out of individuals for their failures in order to motivate others to succeed

6. Communicates predominantly through the use of memoranda.

7. Withholds continuing education funds as a motivation tactic.

8. Provides opportunities for open discussions on program-related topics.

9. Facilitates collaborative decision-making processes

Self-Study Preparation

10. I was responsible for contributing significantly to the Self-Study.

11. I assisted with setting goals and time frames for completing the components of the Self-Study.

12. The program director assigned specific components of the Self-Study to the faculty without their input.

13. My participation in the Self-Study was minimal.

14. The faculty accepted responsibility for preparing the Self-Study.

On-site Visit

15. My participation in the actual On-site Visit was minimal.

16. I was confident that I could respond adequately to the majority of questions asked by the On-site Evaluation Team.

17. I played an integral part in planning for the On-site Visit.

Implementation

18. I played (or will play) an integral role in implementing the plans delineated in the accreditation documentation.

19. I am actively implementing the plans delineated in the accreditation documentation with my involvement on various committees.

20. The implementation of the plans created for CAPTE is up to the program director.

General

21. My primary commitment is that I maintain my clinical skills.

22. I understand how the curriculum is linked with the evaluative criteria for CAPTE accreditation.

23. I agreed with CAPTE’s assessment and findings.

24. I am more concerned with my research and publications than I am with working to enhance the quality of the program.

25. I understand how compliance with the CAPTE evaluative criteria enhances the quality of Physical Therapy Education.

26. The accreditation process is invaluable to program quality.

27. I am extremely committed to contributing to my program’s mission to prepare competent,

compassionate clinicians.

28. The criteria cited by CAPTE were mostly issues unrelated to my program’s quality.

29. In general, the majority of CAPTE criteria are irrelevant to program quality.

Demographics

30. How many years have you been employed in your current capacity at your institution?

< 1, 1- <2, 2 - <5, > 5

31. How many years of experience do you have in teaching and/or research at the university level?

< 1, 1- <2, 2 - <5, > 5

32. What is your gender? Male, Female

Appendix C

ITEMS FROM FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRE

Questionnaire Items (rated on a scale of 1-4)

1. The faculty were responsible for contributing significantly to the Self-study.

2. The faculty assisted with setting goals and time frames for completing the components of the Self-study.

3. The faculty’s participation in the Self-study was minimal.

4. The faculty accepted responsibility for preparing the Self-study.

5. As department chair, I assigned responsibilities to faculty for completing components of the Self-study.

6. As department chair, I wrote the Self-study without much input from faculty.

7. Faculty wrote various components of the Self-study.

8. The faculty played an integral part in planning for the On-site visit.

9. The faculty’s participation in the actual On-site visit was minimal.

10. The faculty played an integral role in implementing the plans delineated in the accreditation documentation.

11. The faculty actively implemented the plans delineated in the accreditation documentation with their involvement on various committees.

12. The implementation of the plans created for CAPTE was up to the chairperson.

13. The faculty were responsible for contributing significantly to the Progress Report.

14. As department chair, I assigned responsibilities to faculty for completing components of the Progress Report.

15. The faculty’s participation in the Progress Report was minimal.