Recent Trends in US Accreditation

Eaton, Judith S.

doi:10.1057/9781137374639.0016

Cited by 18 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While the meanings are similar, there are some slight distinctions of note in the context of this paper: “certification” has typically been associated with manufacturing quality (i.e. : ISO 9000 Certification) and over the last 100 years in the USA, “accreditation” is generally known as a process to evaluate institutions and programs (Eaton, 2009). “Certification” is viewed as a form of accreditation since accreditation usually indicates an organization’s overall ability to show competency in multiple areas of management, financial operations and organizational capacity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder groups and accountability accreditation of non-profit organizations

Feng

Neely

Slatten

2019

JPBAFM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to test the association between various stakeholder groups and whether nonprofit organizations (NPOs) have obtained accountability accreditation. In particular, the study intends to answer the following research questions: Does the governance of an NPO have any impact on the likelihood that the organization obtains certification? Does an NPO’s investment in executives affect certification efforts? Does employing a professional fundraiser play a significant role in whether an organization seeks accreditation? and Are certification efforts influenced by the relative sophistication of donors of the NPO? Design/methodology/approach Data were analyzed by examining information provided in the Internal Revenue Service revised Form 990, Part VI specifically from organizations holding the Standards for Excellence® (SFX) certification. This study uses a size- and sector-matched sample of 228 NPOs (half of which with the SFX certification and half without) to examine the association between accountability and governance in NPOs in both univariate and multivariate contexts. Findings The findings of this study indicate that organizations with strong internal governance (indicated by their answers to the governance-related questions in Form 990) are more likely to have obtained certification when compared to a group of nonprofits that did not receive the certification. In addition, nonprofits that invest more in their executives are more likely to receive SFX certification. Interestingly, external stakeholders (donors making restricted gifts, and professional fundraisers) are not associated with the likelihood of holding the SFX certification. Research limitations/implications Even though the study has attempted to control for factors that may have contributed to the findings (e.g. a size- and sector-matched peer for each NPO that secures the SFX seal in the final sample), it is not feasible to perfectly tease out all alternative explanations for the findings. Endogeneity issues may still be present given that the sample and comparison groups possess significantly different governance characteristics (i.e. governance scores, board independence, investments on executives). Practical implications The positive association between organization governance and investment in executives and the NPO’s certification credentials implies that certification may be used by these certified organizations as a signaling mechanism for strong governance. This would be consistent with the positive stakeholders’ reactions to NPOs’ accountability certifications that have been documented by Feng et al. (2016). The findings should help NPO board and staff members, researchers, and regulators to further understand the association between stakeholder groups and whether NPOs have obtained accreditation. Originality/value A thorough search of the relevant literature suggests that this study is the first one to link the association between stakeholder influence (proxied by the NPO’s governance strength, investments in executives, employing a professional fundraiser and donor sophistication) and an NPO’s decision to seek accountability accreditation. The findings should provide insights to stakeholders and researchers interested in examining the value of third-party accountability certifications and signaling mechanisms in NPOs and inform regulators regarding significant stakeholder influence on NPOs’ accreditation decision-making process. The results of this study also add to the body of literature on certification programs for NPOs.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder groups and accountability accreditation of non-profit organizations

Feng

Neely

Slatten

2019

JPBAFM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Spady’s OBE philosophy - four power principles of authentic OBE [2] – [5] are applied here as guidelines for the development and implementation of specific PIs and hybrid rubrics [42] : Clarity of focus : Subject specialists within a program form sub-groups to select appropriate course content, topics, learning activities and their skills/complexity levels based on student standards for the development of specific PIs and their hybrid rubrics. The language of specific PIs and hybrid rubrics should have sufficient transparency in meaning to promote easy faculty comprehension and application resulting in perfect implementation of scientific constructive alignment and use of the “ unique assessments ” philosophy [22] , [24] , [35] , [38] , [48] , [49] , [50] , [62] , [63] , [67] , [69] , where a single assessment does not map to more than one specific PI. The language of the specific PIs and descriptors should have an approximate correspondence with student learning activities, so both, students and faculty, can clearly understand the various scales of performance expectations [42] .…”

Section: Theoretical Conceptual and Practical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The two top standards of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, (CHEA) recognition criteria as stated by Eaton (2012) are 1) Advance academic quality : accreditors have a clear description of academic quality and clear expectations that the institutions or programs they accredit have processes to determine whether quality standards are being met and 2) Demonstrate accountability : accreditors have standards that call for institutions and programs to provide consistent, reliable information about academic quality and student achievement to foster continuing public confidence and investment [38] . Now, with thousands of engineering programs seeking accreditation in the US alone, and given the list of issues prevalent in CQI processes, qualifying credible program evaluations based on reliable and accurate outcomes information is becoming increasingly complex, high stakes and far reaching.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ABET Accreditation During and After COVID19 - Navigating the Digital Age

Hussain

Spady²,

Naqash

et al. 2020

IEEE Access

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Engineering accreditation agencies and governmental educational bodies worldwide require programs to evaluate specific learning outcomes information for attainment of student learning and establish accountability. Ranking and accreditation have resulted in programs adopting shortcut approaches to collate cohort information with minimally acceptable rigor for Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI). With tens of thousands of engineering programs seeking accreditation, qualifying program evaluations that are based on reliable and accurate cohort outcomes is becoming increasingly complex and is high stakes. Manual data collection processes and vague performance criteria assimilate inaccurate or insufficient learning outcomes information that cannot be used for effective CQI. Additionally, due to COVID19 global pandemic, many accreditation bodies have cancelled onsite visits and either deferred or announced virtual audit visits for upcoming accreditation cycles. In this study, we examine a novel meta-framework to qualify state of the art digital Integrated Quality Management Systems for three engineering programs seeking accreditation. The digital quality systems utilize authentic OBE frameworks and assessment methodology to automate collection, evaluation and reporting of precision CQI data. A novel Remote Evaluator Module that enables successful virtual ABET accreditation audits is presented. A theory based mixed methods approach is applied for evaluations. Detailed results and discussions show how various phases of the meta-framework help to qualify the context, construct, causal links, processes, technology, data collection and outcomes of comprehensive CQI efforts. Key stakeholders such as accreditation agencies and universities can adopt this multi-dimensional approach for employing a holistic metaframework to achieve accurate and credible remote accreditation of engineering programs.

show abstract

“…It seems clear that the pursuit of quality must incorporate clear and useful data for both decision making and accountability. However, as Eaton (2015) notes, an institution’s responsibility for its own quality is a cornerstone of effective quality assurance.…”

Section: Aligning Internal and External Data Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutional research as a bridge

Haskell

2017

HEED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper explores the roles of institutional research (IR) units in higher education, examining both internal and external responsibilities and demands. The purpose of this paper is to encourage a broader strategic discussion of the missions and capacities of such academic institutional entities. Design/methodology/approach The methodology employed begins with a review of relevant literature, followed by critical observations of an experienced reflective practitioner. Beginning with the premise that academic institutions are central, the paper discusses the external environment of institutions and the requirements placed on their internal IR operations. A core question is presented: research for whom? Both traditional and alternative organizational models are discussed in this light. The paper then explores ways in which data needs might be aligned in order to provide accountable, useful and transparent information to all stakeholders, internal and external. Findings Findings show that the linking of internal information needs with those of external actors is key to effective operations; that IR units should seek to be a bridge between their institution and its environment so that effective information can be provided to all who need it. The paper is not designed as a detailed operational roadmap, but rather to highlight issues for examination within the context of specific institutional and agency situations. Originality/value Its originality stems from the focus on such linkages and the call for organizational leaders to recognize the full value of IR both within and across organizational boundaries.

show abstract

Recent Trends in US Accreditation

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

Stakeholder groups and accountability accreditation of non-profit organizations

Stakeholder groups and accountability accreditation of non-profit organizations

ABET Accreditation During and After COVID19 - Navigating the Digital Age

Institutional research as a bridge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About