• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of jathtrainLink to Publisher's site
J Athl Train. 2006 Oct-Dec; 41(4): 415–421.
PMCID: PMC1748423

Perceptions of Quality for Graduate Athletic Training Education


Context: Accreditation is generally considered the primary mechanism for quality assurance in higher education, but disagreement often exists between accrediting agencies and the perceptions of professionals who feel the accrediting body has failed to meet its quality control function. For accreditation to have value, it must be a meaningful indicator of quality and be viewed as such.

Objective: To identify the predominant contributors to quality for postcertification graduate education as perceived by athletic training educators and to compare results among respondents with different education levels, academic ranks, tenure classifications, and program affiliations.

Design: Non-experimental descriptive survey.

Setting: 2003 National Athletic Trainers' Association Educators' Conference.

Patients or Other Participant(s): Of a convenience sample of 353 athletic training educators, 194 (55%) submitted usable questionnaires. Males accounted for 115 (59%) respondents and females for 79 (41%). Of the 14 National Athletic Trainers' Association-accredited postcertification graduate education programs, 12 were represented.

Main Outcome Measure(s): Quantitative data for closed-ended questionnaire items were analyzed using descriptive statistics and measures of central tendency, with composite mean scores for each item used for comparisons. Qualitative data were coded according to major themes and analyzed.

Results: Support for accreditation at the postcertification graduate education level was moderate (mean = 3.08 ± 0.811 on a 4-point scale). Subjects with doctoral degrees (n = 88) indicated that research contributed significantly more to quality (mean = 3.38 ± 0.636) than did those with master's degrees (n = 106, mean = 2.97 ± 0.786). Respondents with master's degrees stated that clinical education was a greater contributor to quality (mean = 3.76 ± 0.491) than did those with doctoral degrees (3.44 ± 0.663).

Conclusions: The educators showed agreement for most quality indicators. The greatest contributors to program quality were program curriculum; adequate faculty, staff, and administrative support; evaluation; clinical education; and research.

Keywords: accreditation, curriculum, graduate study

The pursuit of “quality education” is ubiquitous in our society. Schools and programs can be assessed and ranked using measurable standards that quantify predetermined quality attributes. Although accreditation is generally considered the primary mechanism for quality assurance in higher education, disagreement often exists between accrediting agencies and the perceptions of professionals who feel the accrediting body has failed to meet its quality control function. 1, 2 This incongruence can lead to competing accrediting agencies emerging within the same profession, as occurred with nursing's traditional accrediting body, the National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission, and the recent establishment of the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education. 3

As the body of professional athletic training knowledge increases, so does the need to reevaluate the role of graduate athletic training programs. To facilitate this effort, the National Athletic Trainers' Association (NATA) Post-Professional Education Committee has identified desirable characteristics for postcertification graduate education (PCGE). These characteristics emphasize research, advanced theoretic knowledge acquisition, scholarship, and the development of critical thinking skills. New standards and guidelines, framed by these desirable attributes, have recently been adopted for the accreditation of PCGE programs. 4

For accreditation to have value, it must be a meaningful indicator of quality and it must be viewed as such. 1, 3, 5, 6 The extent to which the salient characteristics of these new guidelines correlate with educators' concepts of quality can indicate if the new graduate education accreditation standards will be meaningful to the athletic training academic community and, therefore, sought after by potential students and employers.

My purpose was to identify the characteristics reflecting quality in a PCGE program and to determine the extent to which that PCGE accreditation and the new PCGE standards and guidelines contribute to quality. Other goals were to determine if significant differences exist in perceptions of quality for PCGE between educators from NATA-accredited and nonaccredited athletic training programs and to determine if significant differences exist in perceived characteristics of quality of PCGE among educators with various education levels, academic ranks, and tenure classifications.



A convenience sample of athletic training educators (n = 353) who attended the January 2003 NATA Educators' Conference in Montgomery, TX, was utilized for this study. This population was selected for its assumed interest in, and knowledge of, current educational issues, and the study group included 17 educators from 12 of the 14 NATA-accredited PCGE programs. Of the possible 353, 196 questionnaires were returned, resulting in a 55.5% response rate. However, 2 surveys were not usable and were excluded, resulting in 194 usable surveys, for a 55% response rate. Of these respondents, 115 (59%) were male and 79 (41%) were female, a distribution similar to the overall 2003 NATA membership ratio of 54% males to 46% females. 7


A content analysis of the PCGE accreditation standards, scaled and compressed using a Q-sort technique, served as the survey framework. 8 Four individuals with expertise in athletic training, education, educational research, and survey design independently reviewed the initial survey and provided feedback for improvement. The survey instrument was then developed as a Web page using FrontPage software (version 5; Microsoft Corp, Redmond, WA). I selected an online questionnaire format because of previous poor response rates on some paper-based surveys in athletic training and because busy professionals may be more likely to complete a survey if it is convenient. 9, 10

Before I distributed the survey to the entire population sample, I conducted an online pilot study with a small sample of athletic training educators to check for understanding, readability, and internal item consistency and integrity. A reliability analysis was performed, and a coefficient of 0.83 was computed for the questionnaire, exceeding the recommended reliability coefficient of 0.80. 11

The survey instrument consisted of a 12-item demographic section, 23 scaled response questions, and 1 open-ended question. Of the 23 scaled response questions, 22 measured the perceived importance of each PCGE standard in contributing to the quality of graduate education. The open-ended question solicited participant opinion.


Institutional review board approval for the study was granted before data collection. Initial contact with the study participants was achieved via a personalized, e-mailed cover letter with an embedded hyperlink for survey completion. A follow-up e-mail was sent 2 weeks later to encourage participation. For anonymity of responses, single-use codes for survey access were provided. The codes allowed the researcher to know who had responded without identifying individual responses. Once a participant completed the survey, the data were added to a database for subsequent analysis.

Participation in the study was voluntary, and the subjects were free to withdraw or decline to answer any question without penalty. Participants were informed that responses would be anonymous and confidential and that all questionnaire responses would remain with the researcher.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data for closed-ended questionnaire items were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (version 11.5; SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). Measures of central tendency provided an average score for each questionnaire item along with the standard deviation to indicate the nature of the distribution of scores. Pearson correlation analyses were conducted to identify relationships among questionnaire items. I report only those relationships with a correlation coefficient of .60 or higher, which is considered to reflect a strong positive relationship with large effect sizes. 11

A factor analysis was conducted to further study relationships and to identify the strongest cluster of questionnaire items related to athletic training standards. The factor analysis organized and reduced the number of relationships of questionnaire items through data reduction, using a principal component analysis as the extraction method and a Varimax with Kaiser normalization rotation method to explain item variance. Only clusters of questionnaire items organized into components to the standard eigenvalue of 1.00 are reported.

Finally, I computed a series of t tests and 1-way analyses of variance to determine if significant differences were present by influence of education completed, current employment, or program affiliation. 12 The alpha level was set at .05.

Qualitative responses from the open-ended question were summarized, coded, and analyzed according to major themes, using inductive content analysis with open axial coding. The nondirective nature of this question allowed participants to list any characteristics they believed indicated quality for PCGE in athletic training or any ideas they believed would assist in defining quality for PCGE in athletic training.



Most respondents held master's degrees (n = 106, 55%) and the academic rank of instructor, lecturer, or assistant professor. Of the remaining respondents, 88 (45%) possessed doctoral degrees and held the academic rank of assistant professor, associate professor, or professor ( Table 1). Slightly more than half of the respondents (n = 102, 53%) served as undergraduate program directors, whereas 19 (10%) were graduate program directors. Although 176 (91%) respondents were affiliated with a Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs–accredited undergraduate program, only 17 (9%) were affiliated with an NATA-accredited PCGE program. However, of the 14 NATA-accredited PCGE programs at the time of this study, 12 programs were represented by 17 respondents, providing an 86% participation rate for this subset. A total of 131 participants (68%) were affiliated with schools that did not have a PCGE program but that did offer graduate programs of study within their department. Of those, 24 participants (18%) indicated that they planned to seek accreditation for their graduate athletic training program, whereas 106 (81%) did not.

Table 1
Distribution of Survey Participants by Academic Rank.

Characteristics Indicative of Quality

Item analysis indicated that the major contributors to program quality were curriculum, research, faculty and administration, and clinical experience (rank ordered).


Curricular issues comprised the largest group of responses, with most respondents indicating that PCGE programs should offer advanced learning opportunities for students and not simply repeat content from undergraduate education. Remarks ranged from conceptual (“Content should be well above what is being taught in the very best undergraduate programs”) to concrete (“There should be cadaver dissection”).

The second most common cluster of responses indicated that PCGE program curricula should develop students' critical problem-solving skills. Many respondents stated that PCGE should not come as a curricular “package” of prescribed course work but rather should allow for institutional autonomy. One respondent stated, “Institutional and program autonomy (which accreditation threatens) is important for quality in PCGE.”

Several respondents indicated the belief that the curriculum should be directed by faculty expertise. Others felt that programs should offer specialized interest areas and allow students to choose an emphasis area from these specialties.


Statements regarding the importance of research in PCGE were second to curricular statements by only 10 responses. The preponderance of responses in these 2 areas indicated the perceived importance of curriculum and research for quality in PCGE. Subcategories for this area included interdisciplinary research, quality student research projects, research-based education, and faculty-directed research experience. These clusters of subcategories reflect different aspects of a research component, which most athletic training educators participating in this study believe should be integrated into PCGE programs.

However, some respondents felt that while research was important, it should not be the primary focus for graduate education. This point was illustrated by the comment, “There should be a research experience to expose students to critical inquiry and the research process but not to make researchers out of every student.”

Faculty and Administration

Responses regarding faculty and administrative characteristics comprised the third largest category. Clusters of subcategories included the importance of having sufficient numbers of qualified faculty, scholarly faculty, quality instruction, supportive administrative policy, and student mentoring.

Comments such as “Faculty should have a strong record and understanding of research” highlighted the role of faculty members in supporting research. Responses such as “Faculty should have a strong interest in student welfare and professionalism” indicated another aspect of faculty members' roles.

Clinical Experience

Clinical experience comprised the fourth area that athletic training educators felt was important for PCGE programs. These responses were much less numerous than those in any of the first 3 categories. Clusters of responses for this topic indicated the themes of opportunities for independent clinical experiences, variety of clinical settings, and refinement of clinical skills.

Accreditation's Contributions to Quality

Participants indicated the extent to which PCGE accreditation contributed to quality on a 4-point scale labeled with the following descriptors: greatly, moderately, minimally, and none. Responses reflected moderate support for accreditation at the PCGE level (mean = 3.08 ± 0.81). Most respondents (47%, n = 91) selected moderately; 33% (n = 64) selected greatly; 16% (n = 31) selected minimally; and 4% (n = 8) selected none.

Postcertification Graduate Education Standards and Guidelines' Contribution to Quality

This section consisted of 22 questions, which respondents answered on a 4-point scale with the following descriptors that were later assigned a point value for statistical analysis: greatly (4), moderately (3), minimally (2), and none (1). Means and SDs were calculated for each question and are presented in rank order ( Table 2). Responses indicated that the greatest contributors to program quality were adequate number of qualified faculty (mean = 3.86 ± 0.39), program director's strong academic orientation and interest in student professional preparation (mean = 3.75 ± 0.46), goals and objectives related to enhancing students' critical-thinking skills (mean = 3.72 ± 0.51), and adequate numbers of qualified athletic training staff and other allied health personnel (mean = 3.70 ± 0.51).

Table 2
Measures of Central Tendency in Rank Order by Mean.

I further analyzed the data through correlation and factor analyses. The correlation analysis systematically paired questionnaire items to measure the association between them. The factor analysis used the strongest cluster of correlated questionnaire items to reveal overall themes, patterns, or factors that highly contribute to quality for PCGE in athletic training ( Table 3).

Table 3
Factors Contributing to Quality in Postcertification Graduate Education.

Associations between highly correlated questionnaire items (coefficients of 0.6 or above) were determined through a Pearson correlation ( Table 4). High levels of association existed among various questions regarding research experiences, program director's involvement with scholarly work, program evaluation, and revision.

Table 4
Correlated Questionnaire Items.

Perceptions of Quality

Responses were compared between respondents who indicated affiliation with an NATA-accredited PCGE program (n = 17) and those who did not (n = 176). One participant did not indicate program affiliation. A high level of agreement existed between the groups for most questions. However, statistically significant differences were found between the groups for 7 questions.

Compared with educators from nonaccredited programs, educators from accredited programs felt that providing students with advanced knowledge and skills to prepare them for leadership roles (t 24.732 = −3.15, P = .004), program director involvement in athletic training research and other scholarly work (t 28.240 = −6.22, P = .000), adequate numbers of qualified faculty (t 175.000 = −5.01, P = .000), courses leading to a research experience (t 27.185 = −5.655, P = .000), research experiences designed to expand the body of knowledge in athletic training (t 26.341 = −5.860, P = .000), sufficient time and opportunity for research (t 190 = −3.661, P = .000), and facilities and equipment (t 21.183 = −2.502, P = .021) contributed more to quality.

Perceived Characteristics of Quality

Perceptions of quality among educators with different education levels, academic ranks, and tenure classifications were examined. Agreement was high among the groups for most responses. The only significant differences occurred for questions related to research and clinical education.

Compared with educators with master's degrees, those with doctoral degrees indicated that the program director's ongoing involvement in athletic training research and other scholarly work (t 187 = −3.312, P = .001), courses leading to a research experience (t 188 = −3.794, P = .000), research experiences designed to expand the body of knowledge in athletic training (t 188 = −3.316, P = .001), sufficient time and opportunity for research (t 189 = −3.934, P = .000), and facilities and equipment (t 189 = −2.788, P = .007) contributed significantly more. Respondents with master's degrees indicated that clinical education was a greater contributor to quality than did educators with doctoral degrees (t 151.082 = 3.781, P = .000).


The Post-Professional Education Committee of the NATA has proposed the following mission statement for postcertification graduate education programs: “The mission of post-certification graduate education in athletic training is to expand the depth and breadth of the applied, experiential, and propositional knowledge of an entry-level education and to disseminate new knowledge in the discipline.” 13 This mission statement implies several important points. The founding principle is that graduate education should build on the knowledge gained in entry-level programs, not repeat it. This principle is reinforced by a shift from simply learning facts, methods, and protocols to studying the reasons for, and the validity of, clinical methods and protocols through theoretic study and research. Additionally, new knowledge should be sought through research with the purpose of disseminating it via peer-reviewed publications. 14

Current graduate accreditation standards reflect this philosophical shift. The old standards were prescriptive, describing which courses had to be taught and how many hours of field experience were required. The new standards outline principles and elements that each program can fulfill in a unique way. According to the Standards and Guidelines for Post-Certification Graduate Education Programs, 4 students should exhibit a mastery of subject matter, critical-thinking skills, theoretic understanding, proficiency in research, a service orientation, and a diverse representation of perspectives. The guidelines further state that graduate athletic training education should provide advanced skills and knowledge instruction and prepare students for leadership roles within the profession.

Most athletic training educators in this study agreed on the principles of PCGE and supported the philosophical perspective of graduate education as outlined by the NATA. However, opinions diverged on what emphases a quality graduate program should include. Yet this finding should not be construed as negative, because a variety of educational experiences and emphases is a positive characteristic of graduate education.

Accreditation of athletic training programs at the graduate level, while generally desirable, was not considered the defining indicator of quality. Given that accreditation is the primary quality assurance vehicle for undergraduate education, it was interesting that accreditation did not carry over as fundamentally important to supporting quality for graduate athletic training education.

Unless accreditation provides some benefit to students, institutions, and the profession, it is unlikely to be perceived as necessary for program excellence. 2, 5 Additionally, survey responses indicated that some athletic training educators dislike the accreditation process and feel that quality is driven by the institution, program, and faculty. This viewpoint implies that accreditation is unnecessary in promoting quality and that quality is the result of dedicated and skilled faculty, program curriculum and resources, and institutional support, which are obtainable without the extra “hassle” of accreditation. 2, 6

Trends in nursing and medical education reflect attempts to improve the quality of graduate education through accreditation requirements. The American Association of Colleges of Nursing identified 6 areas to categorize measures of quality for graduate programs in nursing: faculty, program of study, resources, students, research, and evaluation. 15 Each category contained between 5 and 8 “indicators” of quality. These indicators were similar to established standards for athletic training accreditation. The few differences included an emphasis on scholarly work, mentoring of students, and technology resources and training. 15, 16

The Association of Professors of Medicine uses student-to-faculty ratios, faculty achievement, length of program, research activity in program, availability of patients with diverse conditions, evidence of thorough procedural training, and previous certification passing rates of graduates to determine quality. 17 The American Board of Internal Medicine evaluates programs on the following criteria: clinical judgment, medical knowledge, clinical skills, humanistic qualities, professionalism, medical care, continuing scholarship, and moral and ethical behavior. 18

Additionally, an emphasis on critical-thinking skills has been evident in educational curricula for nursing, physical therapy, and medical schools as a necessary part of each student's professional training. For nursing and physical therapy schools, fostering the development of critical thinking is also an accreditation consideration. 19–22

Cameron and Whetten 23 explained the dynamics and complexity of documenting the elusive measures of quality. In describing different quality approaches, they describe a “little q” approach as the product or process; the “big Q” approach is associated with strategy and overall functioning of an organization, otherwise known as Total Quality Management (TQM). The authors further discussed the lack of a precise definition of quality because “definitions are constructed in the minds of the definers.” This statement implies that within the construct of quality, no one definition is completely right. However, they also noted that the construct of quality, regardless of specific definition, tends to encompass every aspect of an organization, beginning with quality processes, which lead to quality outcomes. Although the TQM philosophy was originally designed for business, it has been successfully adapted for medical education. 24

Yunker 2 offered a different perspective on quality as it applies to accreditation. He likened accreditation to a diploma. A diploma serves as evidence that a graduate met the minimum standards required for graduation. By itself, it reveals nothing with regard to how those minimum standards were met or exceeded. The transcript specifies the performance level beyond the required minimum. The application of this analogy is that accreditation is nothing more than an indicator of minimum performance and not a designation of high quality. He further proposed that accreditation should be attainable by a majority of schools at current performance levels and that superior performance should be recognized by a separate award with several levels to designate the different degrees of excellence achieved. 2

Professional Implications

Accreditation has long been established as the primary form of quality review in higher education. 1, 3, 25 With specialized accreditation acting as an effective quality-assurance vehicle for undergraduate educational programs in athletic training, why isn't accreditation at the PCGE level considered integral to quality?

More than one answer to this question likely exists. One factor may be that without a differentiated credential achieved at the end of postcertification graduate study, demand to attend accredited programs is less. Students might consider graduate programs resulting in specialized professional credentials more valuable if they resulted in an easier job search or a higher salary (or both). Another possibility is that when institutions weigh the costs versus the benefits of pursuing accreditation at the PCGE level, the benefits do not outweigh the costs.

Additionally, doctoral-trained educators are relatively few in number. With educators holding master's degrees emphasizing clinical education far more often than research, it is unlikely that research-oriented accreditation standards will gain greater support until greater value is placed on research among athletic training educators or until more accredited graduate programs exist at research-oriented institutions.

It was interesting that 24 respondents indicated plans to pursue NATA accreditation for a PCGE program. Given the historically few NATA-accredited graduate programs, an increase of even half this number would almost double the number of accredited programs and would likely have an effect on their perceived value.

Despite recent PCGE accreditation reforms, continued change is inevitable. The question concerns what that change should entail. Reform initiatives in higher education have seen an increased use of performance-based assessment measures as the basis for granting accreditation, with an increasing need to distinguish between accreditation as the minimum standard and levels of excellence as the highest standards. 26–28 Instituting a similar initiative of specialty certifications could be an option for the future of PCGE.


Among athletic training educators, concepts differ with regard to what constitutes a quality PCGE program. As a group, educators with doctoral degrees indicated that research was more important to quality than did educators with master's degrees. Educators with master's degrees indicated that clinical experience was of greater importance to quality. This finding illustrates a philosophical divergence in defining quality for PCGE. Current PCGE accreditation standards reflect a research-oriented emphasis, which may explain why accreditation for PCGE programs has only moderate support and has not led to an increase in accredited graduate programs. The relatively small number of doctoral-trained educators from PCGE programs undoubtedly influenced the results of this study. Although these findings are consistent with national trends in athletic training education, doctoral-trained educators are the group most likely to support graduate-level research.

Athletic training educators in this study agreed that the greatest contributors to program quality were (1) program curriculum, (2) adequate faculty, staff, and administrative support, (3) evaluation, (4) clinical education, and (5) research. These contributors closely correspond with the PCGE accreditation standards.

The vitality of the athletic training profession largely depends on the quality of the education provided. 14, 29 Quality should be an intrinsic part of the organization of a program itself and not just an attribute of its outcomes. 30 Athletic training educators must take responsibility for the quality of their programs through continuous self-assessment and must promote an environment that supports a culture of quality. 23, 26


I thank Dr Todd McLoda and Dr Chad Starkey for their assistance during various stages of this study and during manuscript preparation.


  • Dill D, Massy W, Williams P, Cook C. Accreditation and academic quality assurance. Change. 1996;28:16–24.
  • Yunker J. Doing things the hard way: problems with mission-linked AACSB accreditation standards and suggestions for improvement. J Educ Business. 2000;75:348–353.
  • Bellack JP, Gelmon SB, O'Neil EH, Thompson CL. Responses of baccalaureate and graduate programs to the emergence of choice in nursing accreditation. J Nurs Educ. 1999;38:53–61. [PubMed]
  • National Athletic Trainers' Association Education Council. Standards and guidelines for post-certification graduate athletic training education programs. Available at: http://www.nataec.org/documents/downloads/graduate/pcgestandards12.pdf. Accessed September 2, 2005 .
  • Bloland H. Creating CHEA: building a new national organization on accrediting. J Higher Educ. 1999;70:357–388.
  • Earle R. AECT and NCATE: a partnership for quality teaching through accreditation. TechTrends. 2000;44:53–57.
  • National Athletic Trainers' Association. NATA membership statistics. Available at: http://www.nata.org/membership/MembStats.htm. Accessed September 2, 2005 .
  • Best JW, Kahn JV. Research in Education. 8th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon; 1998.
  • Weidner TG, Laurent T. Selection and evaluation guidelines for clinical education settings in athletic training. J Athl Train. 2001;36:62–67. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Czaja R, Blair J. Designing Surveys: A Guide to Decision and Procedures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press; 1996.
  • Arnold BL, Gansneder BM, Perrin DH. Research Methods in Athletic Training. Philadelphia, PA: FA Davis; 2005.
  • Vogt WP. Dictionary of Statistics and Methodology: A Nontechnical Guide for the Social Sciences. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1999.
  • Ingersoll C. Post-Certification Graduate Education Update. Dallas, TX: National Athletic Trainers' Association Education Council; 1999:1(2)
  • Knight KL, Ingersoll CD. Developing scholarship in athletic training. J Athl Train. 1998;33:271–274. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • American Association of Colleges of Nursing. Indicators of quality in doctoral programs in nursing. J Prof Nurs. 1997;13:200–202. [PubMed]
  • American Association of Colleges of Nursing. The Value and Future of Graduate Education Leading to a Master's Degree: A National Perspective. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges of Nursing; 1980. Publication series 80(2)
  • Association of Professors of Medicine. Assessing the quality of medical subspecialty programs. Am J Med. 1999;106:601–604. [PubMed]
  • American Board of Internal Medicine. Guidelines on Evaluation of Competence and Other Information: A Resource for Subspecialty Program Directors. Philadelphia, PA: American Board of Internal Medicine; 1998: 1–5.
  • Kahn MJ, Blonde L. Assessing the quality of medical subspecialty training programs. Am J Med. 1999;106:601–604. [PubMed]
  • Kaufman DM, Mann KJ. Comparing achievement on the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination part 1 of students in conventional and problem-based learning curricula. Acad Med. 1998;73:1211–1213. [PubMed]
  • Kyriacos U, Van Den Heever J. A nontraditional curriculum for the preparation of nurse educators. J Nurs Educ. 1999;38:319–325. [PubMed]
  • Vernon DT, Hosokawa MC. Faculty attitudes and opinions about problem-based learning. Acad Med. 1996;71:1233–1238. [PubMed]
  • Cameron K, Whetten D. Organizational effectiveness and quality: the second generation. In: Smart JC, ed. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Vol 11. New York, NY: Agathon Press; 1996:265– 306 .
  • Albanese M. Students are not customers: a better model for medical education. Acad Med. 1999;74:1172–1186. [PubMed]
  • Eaton J. Regional accreditation reform: who is served? Change. 2001;33:38–45.
  • Ewell P. A matter of integrity: accountability and the future of self-regulation. Change. 1994;26:24–29.
  • Dill W. Specialized accreditation: an idea whose time has come? Or gone? Change. 1998;30:18–25.
  • Clinard J, Foster L. Leadership in a fishbowl: a new accreditation process. Educ Lead. 1998;55:53–56.
  • Peer KS, Rakich JS. Accreditation and continuous quality improvement in athletic training education. J Athl Train. 2000;35:188–193. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Marchese T. Sustaining quality enhancement in academic and managerial life. In: Peterson M, Dill D, Mets L, eds. Planning and Management for a Changing Environment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1997:502– 520 .

Articles from Journal of Athletic Training are provided here courtesy of National Athletic Trainers Association
PubReader format: click here to try


Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...


  • MedGen
    Related information in MedGen
  • PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...