1 / 27

Doctor of Audiology Program Director Survey 2013

Doctor of Audiology Program Director Survey 2013. Diana C. Emanuel, Ph.D. Towson University. Praxis. Summary: Program directors were not informed and did not provide input on praxis changes but changes have impacted their programs. CSDCAS. Summary:

nayef
Download Presentation

Doctor of Audiology Program Director Survey 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Doctor of Audiology Program Director Survey2013 Diana C. Emanuel, Ph.D. Towson University

  2. Praxis Summary: Program directors were not informed and did not provide input on praxis changes but changes have impacted their programs.

  3. CSDCAS Summary: Just over 1/3 are using CSDCAS and most of the comments are positive

  4. Applicants/Admissions Summary: About ¾ of Au.D. programs reported recent growth in number of applicants

  5. Applicants/Admissions Summary: About 1/3 report increase in non-CSD applicants but only 1/5 are admitting more non-CSD applicants

  6. Applicants/Admissions Summary: Programs vary widely in requirements for non-CSD students.

  7. Applicants/Admissions Summary: About ½ of the program directors think CSD students are prepared for an Au.D. program. Students should have STEM background

  8. Applicants/Admissions Summary: 2/3 of program directors lose students after they accept admission; Most frequency reason is late offer of funding from other school

  9. Faculty recruitment/retention Summary: About ½ report moderate to great difficulty recruiting faculty; few listed reasons, but too few Ph.D. applicants was most common

  10. Faculty recruitment/retention Summary: Most programs do not have difficulty retaining audiology faculty.

  11. Faculty recruitment/retention Summary: The majority of Au.D. faculty are not eligible for tenure/tenure track positions/tenure; Most are eligible for promotion

  12. CCC-A Summary: Just under ½ of Au.D. programs require faculty to hold the CCC-A

  13. CCC-A Summary: Just over ½ of Au.D. programs require CCC-A for externship supervisors; about ½ have little difficulty finding these placements Comments: Students choice (n=12), needed for state licensure (n=1), needed for program accreditation (n=1).

  14. CCC-A Summary: Just over 1/3 of programs have a 4th year CCC-A waiver; over ½ of these have an informed consent process; mean of 5 waivers reported per program with waiver process

  15. Au.D. education model Summary: Just over ½ of directors feel the Au.D. should be a 4-year program.

  16. Au.D. education model • 33 directors made comments: • Change to a 3- year program (n = 11) • Omit externship as part of degree (e.g., 1-yr residency) (n = 6) • Undergraduate program in audiology (n = 1) • Better connections between clinic/didactic/research (n=1) • Economic sustainability for externship (n=1) • Greater emphasis on STEM (n=1) • More specialty certification (n=1) • One accrediting body (CAA) (n=1) • Minimize influence of industry (n=1) • Licensure only for supervision (n=1) Summary: Most (80%) provided suggestions; 1/3 suggested separating externship from degree program

  17. Au.D. program assessment Summary: Vast majority of programs use course, clinic, and program-level assessment systems

  18. Au.D. program assessment 9/11 (82%) of “other” indicated “forms” Summary: Most programs are tracking with spreadsheets or forms

  19. Au.D. program assessment “other” = interview (n=2), site visit (n=1), “we review everything and ask everyone” (n=1) Summary: Programs are using surveys extensively to examine the efficacy of clinical assessment

  20. Au.D. program assessment “other” = grand rounds (n=7), capstone presentation (n=6), comps (n=3), other presentation (n=3), counseling (n=1). Summary: Programs are using multiple formats for assessment of oral and written skills for Au.D. students “other” = clinic report writing (n=7), other project (n=4), comps (n=3).

  21. Au.D. program assessment • *Note: flaw in survey – directors could not move ahead without answering the question • Comments: • Department not university requirement (n=4) • Delay is due to student not program (n=3) • Time consuming (n=2) • Clinic limits size more than project (n=2) • Very important part of the program (n=2) *Summary: Thesis-type projects are required by ½ of programs; this limits program size for 1/3 of programs and delays graduation for students in 1/5 of programs.

  22. Au.D. director advice Summary: Great suggestions for new program directors; these will be posted

  23. Au.D. externship Summary: Vast majority of programs have dedicated externship placement person

  24. Au.D. externship Summary: The majority of students receive compensation; most frequent compensation types are: stipend, traineeship, salary

  25. Au.D. externship Summary: Just over 1/10th of programs award a master’s degree but 1/3 have tried to place students at sites that require it. Directors would like to see it abolished

  26. Au.D. externship SLP coursework is missing (n=2); students need more pediatric hours (n=1) Summary: Temporary licensure is commonly required for externship; it is usually easy for Au.D. students to obtain

  27. CAuDP Should… Summary: About ½ strongly agree CAuDP should focus on issues with masters required for externship; only 1/5 felt strongly about the workforce study

More Related