PEPonline
Professionalization
of Exercise Physiologyonline

An international electronic
journal for exercise physiologists
ISSN 1099-5862

Vol 2 No 8 August 1999

 

Accreditation
Tommy Boone, Ph.D., MPH, FASEP
Professor and Chair
Department of Exercise Physiology
College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN

The regulation of our profession can be done in three ways: certification, licensure, and accreditation.  Each way regulates the profession differently from the others.  Each has different purposes, philosophies, and legal standings (1).

This article is about accreditation.  What is it? Do we really need it?  Has accreditation been superseded by a focus on individual certification?   To date, there are no accredited exercise physiology programs, and it would be news indeed if contemporary exercise physiologists were to write about standards for the exercise physiology profession.

What is accreditation?
Accreditation is a process based on peer assessment to improve academic quality for public accountability (2).  In general, what is an anticipated with the ASEP Accreditation Plan is to have the department administrators and faculty of an academic program conduct a self study using the evaluative criteria and expectations about quality.  Members of the ASEP Board of Acceditation will review the evidence, visit the campus to interview the faculty, and write a report of its assessment.  The academic quality of the institution is determined by the Board and, should the department prove accountable, the Board awards the institution with accreditation.

Sounds relative simple to do.  However, it is a major undertaking.   Accreditation sets the stage for recognizing professional education programs, thus it can't be taken lightly.  It signifies that the program meets recognized and national accepted standards of scope, quality, and relevance (3).

Who benefits from accreditation?
Everyone!  The public, students, and the education programs.  The profession benefits, too.  The commitment to excellence in exercise physiology is enhanced with accreditation.  Do we need accreditation?  The answer is that we do.  We need accreditation to promote consistently high standards in exercise physiology, just as is the case with nursing and other professional programs of study (4).  The goal is to prepare and thus recognize professionally prepared graduates with a high level of performance, integrity, and quality.  It is time to move away from the organizational inertia of many contemporary education programs and focus on measurable outcomes, performance standards, and professional behaviors.  The public has a right to expect a certain level of quality and preparation in exerecise physiology programs.

The professional organization
Accreditation is confirmed by a professional organization and/or an appropriate limb of the organization with the responsibility to state that either certain educational and hands-on experiences exist or they do not.  Hence, the obvious reason (among many) why the American Society of Exercise Physiologists (ASEP) was founded.  Without a professional organization to oversee requirements and outcomes, there is no regulatory process.  Without regulation, the obvious impacts on income, job possibilities, and public respect remain unchanged.

The absence of regulation, even with an existing body of knowledge, does little to define the graduates.  Without a code of ethics that graduates must accept in order to become membes in good standing, then what types of behavior are or are not acceptable (5).  ASEP already has a code of ethics.  So far, no one has suggested that it is unclear or ambiguous for the purpose of professionalizing exercise physiology.

Exercise physiology at a crossroads
Despite the apparent progress in institutions of higher education with established exercise science/exercise physiology programs, the academic standards are not very high.  The immediate concern is the dangerous precedent that without accreditation, certification, and licensure, that is, without "quality control" -- anyone can be an exercise physiologist.  Even now, this doesn't surprise the reader.  But, if accreditation is to work properly, there must be cooperation between the administrators and faculty of the academic institutions and ASEP, the accreditor (6).

ASEP is (or will soon be) the regulatory agent of accountability.  The process of accreditation is intimately linked with ASEP's efforts to bridge "what is" to "what will be" in order to improve the profession.  The driving force behind this effort is the marketplace, i.e., job opportunties.  Hence, re-engineering exercise physiology thinking is considered essential for the new future.  The resulting changes will help mobilize healthy points of view as well as an expanding knowledge of new roles for the profession.

Important questions for exercise physiologists
Should the control of the profession be in the hands of the sports medicine professionals?  If so, why, and what will their agenda do for exercise physiology?  Should accreditation be outlined and performed by sports medicine organizations?  If so, what does that say about the exercise physiology faculty and the peer-review process?  Perhaps, accreditation should be left to the government.  Some feel that more regulatory control by the federal government isn't the right direction to go.  Does accreditation work?  Of course it does, at least to the extent any such regulatory control helps to voluntarily manage a profession.  How do the faculty of the institutions feel about accreditation?  No one knows, although they have the opportuntity to publish their thoughts in the PEPonline journal.

Each question could be an article by itself and probably should be.  While there are many issues about accreditation, outcomes, and accountability, an interesting question is "What sanctions should be imposed on the institutions that don't see the need for accreditation and/or don't meet the academic standards for institutional accreditation? (7)

Summary
The challenge of becoming a profession involves participating in collective behaviors and a set of values, skills, experiences, and abilities that establishes a group identity that can be recognized by others.  ASEP members consider exercise physiology practitioners to be health, fitness, rehabilitative, and sports/athletic professionals, and are confused when others fail to treat exercise physiologists as professionals.  But, of course, accountability is the price paid for the privilege society grants professionals.  The right to self-regulate and contribute to exercise physiology by supporting ASEP is self-evident, and is prerequisite for professionalism.



References
1.  Barnu, B.S. (1997). Licensure, certification, and accreditation. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing. Available http://www.nursingworld.org/ojin/tpc4/tpc4_2.htm
2.  CHEA Chronicle (1996). What is accreditation?  CHEA Chronicle No. 2, Fall.  Available http://chea.org/Perspective/chronicle2.htm
3.   Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (1997). Accreditation. American Physical Therapy Association. Available http://www.apta.org/education/accred.html
4. Collins, M.S. (1997). Issues of accreditation. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing. Available http://www.nursingworld.org/ojin/tpc4/tpc4_1.htm
5.  Long, B. & Kishchuk, N. (1997). Professional certification: a report for the National Council of the Canadian Evaluation Society on the experience of other organizations. Available http://www.unites.uqam.ca/sce/certification/longkishchukreport.html
6.  Glidden, R. (1996). Accreditation at a crossroads. Educational Record. Available http://chea.org/Perspective/crossroads.html
7. Ryan, S.A. (1997). Accreditation for the future: a director's perspective. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing. Available http://www.nursingworld.org/ojin/tpc4/tpc4_3.htm



Copyright ©1997-2000 American Society of Exercise Physiologists. All Rights Reserved.

ASEP Table of Contents
Questions/comments

Return to top of page