Blog Post by Elise Guest, PhD Candidate

In the context of education, accreditation is the formal process of recognizing program quality (Harvey, 2004). Accreditation is an assessment of a program against predetermined standards and criteria. In Canada, the term is usually applied to individual programs striving to demonstrate excellence (Weinrib & Jones, 2014). Health profession education (HPE) programs in Canada have robust experience with accreditation. The Association of Accrediting Agencies of Canada (AAAC) is a community of practice that supports educational program accreditors across the country; of its 23 members, 11 come from allied health fields such as nursing, occupational therapy, and dentistry.

On the surface, many assume that accreditation and program evaluation are interchangeable processes, as they both seek to understand the nuances of a program to improve quality. Program evaluation, however, is distinct from accreditation. It’s the systematic collection of information about the intentions, operations, and outcomes of a program (Shawer, 2003); it creates new knowledge about it (Yarbrough et al., 2010).

The key to understanding the distinction between accreditation and program evaluation is scope: scope of authority, scope of intent, and scope of outcomes. With regards to the scope of authority, accreditation of healthcare programs is generally organized by members of the discipline – it’s a way for a program to confirm for its interest holders that it has been peer reviewed and meets the expectations of members of the profession. While accreditation is an external process, program evaluation is internal. The scope of authority rests within the program and so the validation that results is narrowly understood as only those with a vested interested in the outcomes have been consulted. Not that there’s anything wrong with that!  Program evaluations are critical opportunities for self-reflection and confirmation of strength or needs for improvement.

The scope of the intent of accreditation is different from the scope of the intent of program evaluation. Accreditation looks at a wide variety of elements of program delivery, from policies to program environment, to graduate outcomes. By holding all programs in a discipline to the same set of criteria, accreditation creates a series of benchmarks, elevating the discipline in question nationally. Program evaluation is an insular exercise – it’s one program looking at how it delivers itself to ensure its goals are met. Accreditation intends to show a program how it meets national standards, whereas program evaluation intends to show a program if it’s meeting its own intended outcomes.

Finally, the scope of the outcomes between accreditation and program evaluation are very different. An accredited program is responsible to the external accrediting body to ensure it meets the terms of its accreditation – this may involve interim reporting, changes in program environment and delivery, shorter or longer accreditation terms, etc. The scope of the outcome of a program evaluation depends on the people within the program – as an internal exercise, changes are only made when internal pressure requires them to be.

So why does your accredited program need program evaluation?  While accreditation and program evaluation are two distinct processes, they are not divested from each other. Many accreditors look for program evaluation plans in the programs they are assessing. There is a recognition that continuous improvement needs to be internally motivated (program evaluation) as much as it is externally motivated (accreditation). Health professional education programs should embrace both processes, while recognizing the similarities and differences, to strengthen the quality of their program. Because, after all, quality HPE programming is always the goal.

References

Harvey, L. (2004). The power of accreditation: Views of academics. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(2), 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080042000218267

Shawer, S. (2013). Accreditation and standards-driven program evaluation: Implications for program quality assurance and stakeholder professional development. Quality and Quantity, 47(5), 2883–2913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9696-1

Weinrib, J., & Jones, G. A. (2014). Largely a matter of degrees: Quality assurance and Canadian universities. Policy and Society, 33(3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2014.07.002

Yarbrough, D. B., Shulha, L. M., Hopson, R. K., & Caruthers, F. A. (2010). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users. SAGE.