A. Team Responsibilities and Expectations

The purpose of an ABET review team is to evaluate the extent to which programs submitted by an institution satisfy the relevant accreditation criteria, policies, and procedures that ABET publishes. Each team reviews one or more programs that an ABET accreditation commission will consider for an accreditation action. The role of each review team member is that of a benevolent auditor working as a partner in a program's continuous improvement process rather than an investigator or detective. Team members are expected to interact with institutional personnel in a professional and collegial manner, and to be helpful as appropriate in assisting programs to improve.

Size of Team

In most cases, an on-site review team for a general review will consist of a team chair and one program evaluator (PEV) for each program being reviewed by the team. If the team is large, then there may be co-chairs for the team. The typical minimum team size is three for a general review, so if only one program is being reviewed and no team from a different commission is simultaneously reviewing programs at the same institution, there may be two PEVs for the single program. In certain cases, the Commission Executive Committee may approve having a team chair and one PEV for a single program general review. The team size also may vary for interim evaluations. Regardless of the number of PEVs, all reviews are a team effort, and the findings and accreditation recommendations from each review are team decisions.

Code of Conduct

Team members represent ABET and an ABET commission. As such, each team member is bound by the ABET Code of Conduct found in the Rules of Procedure. The code requires that every volunteer and staff member exhibit the highest standards of professionalism, honesty, and integrity. The services that ABET provides require impartiality, fairness, and equity. All persons involved with ABET activities must perform their duties under the highest standards of ethical behavior. All members of ABET evaluation teams are bound by the code and agree to abide by it as a condition of assignment to a review team.

Conflict of Interest

Team members also are bound by the ABET Conflict of Interest Policy, found in the Rules of Procedure. Any real or perceived conflict of interest (COI), as defined in the policy, must be disclosed immediately. As a reminder, the following are specifically stated as definite conflicts in the ABET Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual (APPM):

• Current or past employment as faculty, staff, or consultant by the institution or program
• Current or past discussion or negotiation of employment with the institution or program
• Attendance as a student at the institution
• Receipt of an honorary degree from the institution
• Involvement of a close family relative as a student or employee of the institution or program
• An unpaid official relationship with an institution, e.g., membership on the institution’s board of trustees or industry advisory board

Other associations or relationships with the program, institution, or personnel of the program or institution could represent a COI depending on the details. Any questionable circumstances should be discussed with the team chair or appropriate ABET official as soon as possible.

Other associations or relationships with the program, institution, or personnel of the program or institution could represent a COI depending on the details. Any questionable circumstances should be discussed with the team chair or appropriate ABET official as soon as possible.

Professional Dress

As representatives of ABET, each team member's actions reflect on ABET. Therefore, it is essential that each team member act in a professional manner, showing appropriate professional respect for institutional personnel and students. Team members should dress in a manner appropriate for a consultant to the institution. Although "business casual" dress is usually appropriate for a review of course and assessment materials on "Day 0" of a visit, professional dress (i.e., jacket and tie for men) should be worn on the other two days of a visit.

Confidentiality

During a visit, details of findings should not be discussed with faculty and students, and the team recommendations for accreditation actions should never be disclosed except in confidential ABET documents. The team's deliberations are confidential, and all information about the institution and its programs that team members obtain is confidential without time limit and should be discussed only with appropriate institutional representatives and within the review team. All notes and review materials should be retained until after the commission action in July, after which they should be destroyed (except possibly for public documents).

B. Review of Pre-Visit Procedures

Travel Arrangements

Review team members should make travel arrangements as soon as possible after receiving final confirmation of visit dates and times for the first team meeting and for the exit meeting. Reservations on commercial carriers should be made through the ABET travel agency, Travel Destinations. (Travel booked through the ABET travel agent provides travel insurance.) The ABET travel policy changes every year and should be reviewed to ensure compliance. Log in to MyABET to access the current Travel Policy and Procedures Manual. Some notable items from the travel policy are:

• All expenses should be reasonable. Efforts should be made to reduce costs when it does not affect the quality of the review or significantly inconvenience the team member.
• If airline reservations are not made through the ABET travel agent at least three weeks prior to the visit, the maximum cost allowed for travel is the cost of the lowest available fare through the ABET travel agent three weeks before the visit.
• Car rental must be done through the ABET travel agent, which ensures appropriate insurance coverage. Car rental by a PEV must be approved in advance by the team chair. Normally, there will not be more rental cars per team than needed to transport the team.
• Receipts for all expenses, except for some incidentals such as gratuities, are required for reimbursement. Complete receipts (not just a charge card or total charge slip) for meals over $25.00 must be submitted with the expense report.
• No more than $25.00 will be reimbursed in any given day for unsubstantiated expenses.
• For hotel rooms, the traveler is instructed to go to http://www.abet.org/travel-information to compare their current nightly room rate stated by the hotel of choice to that established by ABET. In the event that their hotel’s average nightly room rate is higher than that stated by ABET prior approval must be received from the appropriate ABET Director. ABET’s current nightly room rate is $200.00.
• Submit travel expenses for reimbursement within 10 working days after the visit. Use the online expense report if possible, and if not, download and submit the hardcopy form from the ABET website.
• There will be no reimbursement if expense reports are submitted more than 60 days after completion of the travel.
• There are additional guidelines for travel outside the United States in the ABET Travel Policy and Procedures Manual. Team members on visits outside the United States should review these guidelines.

The team chair will provide information on when and where the team will meet initially and transportation from airport to hotel. The team chair may also coordinate transportation from the exit meeting to the airport.

You should make your travel arrangements to allow ample time for flight or other travel delays to arrive at the initial team meeting on time. In most cases, it is preferable to arrive the evening before the day of the initial team activities if possible, unless the travel is relatively short. Your return trip must be scheduled to allow you to remain through the end of the exit meeting. ABET will pay the hotel cost for the evening before the visit begins and also the evening after the exit meeting if it is not feasible to return home the same day after the exit meeting ends.

The team chair will provide hotel information. In some cases, reservations will be made centrally for the entire team. In other cases, each team member will have to make his or her own reservation. Normally, each team member will pay for his or her own hotel stay and claim reimbursement on the expense report to ABET, but in some cases, a group bill may be arranged and paid by the team chair.

Important Travel Note

Due to concerns regarding potential emergencies which could occur during an ABET team’s on-site review, spouses, family members, or significant others are not approved to accompany team members on visits. Please bring any issues with this directive to the attention of your team chair. If the issue cannot be resolved by the team chair, the Senior Director for Accreditation Operations must be made aware of the problem immediately so that timely decisions/actions can be made or taken as necessary.

Review of Materials

In addition to making the needed transportation and hotel reservations, the pre-visit activities for each team member consist of reviewing the program's self-study report and other materials and making plans for activities during the visit itself. Usually, the team chair will arrange one or more conference calls with the team prior to the visit to discuss various aspects of the visit and potential shortcomings in the programs that will be reviewed by the team.

The review of the materials available before the visit results in indications by each PEV of potential program shortcomings on the PEV worksheet. The PEV worksheet may be a separate document or may be part of the PEV visit report, depending on the commission. Additionally, each PEV reviews the transcripts assigned by the team chair and records the transcript reviews on the PEV report or other form provided for that purpose. The worksheet will be submitted to the team chair prior to the visit, and the transcript reviews may be requested by the team chair prior to the visit as well.

One point of confusion regarding transcript analysis is that the primary purpose of the transcript analysis is for Criterion 1 (which requires that there be procedures to ensure that graduates meet all program requirements, and that students have access to advice regarding curriculum matters). Therefore, the transcript analysis should compare each transcript to the program’s stated curricular requirements. Issues such as inappropriate transfer credit, inappropriate course substitutions, and prerequisites not completed as required are the most frequent indicators in transcripts of potential problems relative to Criterion 1. The program’s curricular requirements as listed in the self study and other relevant materials must themselves be analyzed for compliance with the requirements of Criterion 5 (plus any program criteria).

Use the Forms and Criteria for the Current Cycle

The forms and criteria used during the visit often change from year to year. It is important that you download the documents for the current accreditation cycle from the ABET website. DO NOT USE FORMS OR CRITERIA FROM PREVIOUS CYCLES UNLESS YOU ARE DOING AN INTERIM REVIEW. If you have not already done so, you should download the current documents now and use these for your review. You'll find all current accreditation documents here.

During the pre-visit review, it is especially important to identify additional information that is needed to complete the review. This additional information should be requested to be sent before the visit, or to be provided during the visit, as appropriate.

For the ASAC and the EAC, each PEV will make arrangements for the visit schedule and communicate additional information directly to the program head. However, the team chair should receive a copy of all such requests, and the team chair should be consulted for advice in any case where the PEV is uncertain of a request's reasonableness.

For the CAC and the ETAC, the team chair makes all schedule arrangements and conducts all communication with the institution, so all PEV requests for additional information or scheduling are sent to the team chair in these two commissions.

C. Review of Visit Procedures

Meal Expenses

During the visit, each team member will likely incur some expenses for meals. Remember that receipts are required for expense reimbursements, so be sure to save all receipts for expenses that you pay. Meal expense receipts for more than $25 should show the meal items purchased. Meal expenses are limited to a maximum of $100 per day per person. Many of the meals during the visit itself will be group meals and may be paid for by the team chair.

Typical Schedule

The schedule for a typical general review can be found in the pages that follow.

C.1. Day 0 (usually a Sunday)

Noon

• Team meets for a working lunch.
• Final visit plans and schedule are reviewed.

Afternoon

• Team reviews course/assessment materials.
• Team visits labs and other facilities.

Evening

• Team meeting to share observations and to review the evaluation status of each program.
• Review plans for the next day.

Dinner

• PEVs review individual plans for Day 1.
• PEVs update worksheets to reflect the evaluation status of the program at the end of Day 0.

C.2. Day 1 (usually a Monday)

Morning

• Team meets with the dean.
• PEVs meet with department/program heads.
• Team chair meets with dean and institution officials.
• PEVs interview faculty and students.

Noon

• Lunch (optionally hosted by the institution).

Afternoon

• Interviews continue (and conclude if possible).  
• PEVs visit supporting departments or other offices if assigned.
• PEVs touch base with department/program head to alert to potential shortcomings

Evening

• Team meeting to share findings and to review the status of each program.
• Team decision on recommendation for action on each program

Dinner

• PEVs update worksheets to reflect the evaluation status of the program at the end of Day 1.
• PEVs draft exit statements and PEV reports.

C.3. Day 2 (usually a Tuesday)

Morning

• PEVs touch base with the department/program head to see if additional information is available (if needed).
• PEVs conduct additional interviews or observations as needed.
• Team chair reviews the PEV exit statements.
• Team agrees on recommended findings and action for each program.
• PEVs conduct informal debrief with department/program head.
• TC conducts informal debrief with dean.

Noon

• Working lunch for team.
• PEVs prepare final exit statements, Program Audit Forms to be left with the dean, and PEV reports.
• PEVs make final update to evaluation worksheets.
• PEVs give electronic copies of exit statement and PEV report, and evaluation worksheet if requested, plus a hard copy of the Program Audit Form (PAF) for the institution, to the team chair. An electronic copy of the PAF may also be required.

Afternoon

• Exit meeting is held; PEVs read exit statements verbatim.
• Team leaves campus immediately after the exit meeting.

D. Reminders

As a reminder, during the visit each team member should:

• Maintain an open line of communication with the program head or other primary administrative contact.
• Identify all shortcomings, especially potential deficiencies, as soon as possible.
• Treat all institutional and team personnel with professional courtesy and respect.
• Not compare the program or institution to others, especially your own.
• Discuss all issues with the program head (or other administrative contact) at the debriefing.

Additionally:

• Department/program administrators should not be surprised by the findings during the debriefing.
• Do not discuss the recommended accreditation action with anyone except team members.

Observers

Some teams may have one or more observers during the visit. Usually, observers are representatives of state boards, other accreditation organizations, or related organizations, or they are future PEVs making an observation visit as the last part of PEV training. Observers may participate in team discussions at the discretion of the team chair, but they do not normally participate actively in interviews with institutional personnel unless requested to do so by the team chair or PEV. Observers do not speak at the exit meeting, except possibly to express thanks to the institution.
 

E. Review of Post-Visit Procedures

After the visit, PEVs have two remaining duties:

• Evaluations
  Submit evaluations of the team chair and each of the other PEVs. This is done using the online evaluation forms on the ABET website.
• Travel Expense Reports
  Submit a travel expense report (if reimbursement is requested), using the online expense report submission system if possible. Instructions for use of the online system are available here (login required). The current online expense report system can be used only via Microsoft Internet Explorer. If you do not have access to Internet Explorer, you should download and use the current version of expense report form from the ABET website. Note that the expense report form (not the online report) must be sent to the team chair for approval, not to ABET headquarters.

Expense reports are due within 10 working days after the visit. Expense reports submitted more than 60 days after the visit will not be reimbursed.

Note that some, but not all, societies require submission of documents relative to the visit after the end of a visit. If you do not know the requirements of your society, you should check with your society’s PEV coordinator.

The team chair also may call on PEVs as needed to evaluate the due process response for a program. Notes and materials from the visit should be retained until after the commission action on the program in case re-evaluation of findings is needed in light of new information.

F. Consistency Issues

Consistency in program reviews is a major concern and focus of ABET. It is essential that every effort be made to have consistency to be fair to all reviewed programs and to enhance the credibility of the review process.

Some ways in which consistency issues can arise are:

• Depth and completeness of the review from program to program.
  PEVs must be thorough in auditing the extent to which each criterion is satisfied, and the level of detailed investigation should be the same from program to program.
• Consistency across all programs in an institution.
  It is essential that a team not have different findings for similar characteristics in different programs. It also is essential that teams from different commissions not have different findings for programs when program characteristics and relevant criteria are similar. PEVs must be attentive to the findings on other programs and consider whether there is consistency between findings for each of the other programs and the program that they are reviewing. Consistency in the findings of different teams is usually coordinated by the team chairs.
• Use of key terms.
  The key terms, deficiency, weakness, concern, and observation, must be used correctly and only as defined and intended by ABET..
• Consistency on the interim recommendation.
  For programs requiring an interim review, consistency on the interim recommendation (IR or IV) is essential. The two actions IR and IV do not indicate different levels of severity. The only issue is whether a report would be expected to document corrective actions sufficiently to determine whether each weakness has been resolved.

Remember that review findings on shortcomings and recommended actions are team decisions. A PEV whose personal interpretations of criteria are inconsistent with the other team members' interpretations must either convince the team to modify its findings or conform to the majority opinion to achieve consistency. Similarly, if personal interpretations or beliefs are not consistent with interpretations and guidelines established by a commission, the established interpretations and guidelines must be applied rather than the personal interpretations or beliefs. Team chairs may offer guidance on how a commission has interpreted and applied criteria consistently in the past.
 

G. PEV Deliverables and Documents Summary

A summary of PEV deliverables and document/information flow is as follows:

Before the visit

• PEV completes the initial evaluation worksheet. (The worksheet is a separate document for CAC and EAC and part of the visit report for ASAC and ETAC.) The first column of the worksheet is completed on the basis of a careful review of the self-study report and other materials available before the visit.
• Team chair uses the initial worksheet results to guide pre-visit conferences.
• PEV completes the curriculum and transcript analysis parts of the visit report.
• PEV submits the initial worksheet, and possibly the partially-completed visit report, to the team chair prior to the visit.

During the visit

• PEV updates the worksheet at the end of each day. The updated worksheets are used to guide discussion during team meetings.
• PEV prepares a draft of the exit statement to be read at the exit meeting.
• PEV makes final revisions to the worksheet, completes the visit report, and completes the Program Audit Form (PAF).
• Team chair collects electronic copies of the completed worksheets, visit reports, exit statements (if not part of the visit report), and PAFs, and a hard copy of the PAF.
• PEV reads the exit statement during the exit meeting. Team chair leaves a copy of each PAF with the dean at the end of the meeting.

After the visit

• PEV submits expense report using the online system.
• PEV completes online evaluations of team chair and other PEVs.
• Team chair uses exit statements to prepare and submit a Draft Statement of Findings for each program reviewed.
• After editing, the Draft Statement is sent to the institution.

After receipt of the due process response from the institution

• Team chair consults with PEVs as needed to modify the findings based on the documented corrective actions taken after the visit.
• Team chair prepares a Final Statement that reflects actions reported in the due process response and the resulting status for each shortcoming listed in the Draft Statement.
• The Final Statement is edited. (Additional updates submitted by the institution may be incorporated into the statement if received in time.)
• The commission reads the Final Statement and discusses the findings as needed, then decides the accreditation action for each program.
• ABET sends the institution the Final Statement and a letter stating the accreditation action for each program.

H. Applicable Criteria and Forms

Be sure to use the correct forms for your visit. Always download the latest criteria and forms from the ABET website. Do not use forms from a previous visit.

Some guidelines include the following:

• Use the applicable set of criteria. The criteria document must have the applicable cycle printed on the cover page. For example, general reviews conducted during the fall of 2011 were in the 2011-12 cycle.
• For a general review, use the criteria in the current (at the time of the visit) cycle.
• For an interim review, use the criteria that were in effect at the time of the last general review (unless the institution has opted to use the current criteria). 
• The correct forms to use should have the current cycle printed in the heading of the form. (Some variation may occur on an interim visit.) In some cases, there are different forms for general reviews and interim reviews.
• Current versions of criteria and forms are available here. Criteria for interim reviews should be provided by the team chair.

Questions sometime arise regarding the policies and procedures that a PEV should check during a review. Most of the policy and procedure checks during a normal review are done by ABET staff or the team chair, and any potential issues relative to policies and procedures should be discussed with the team chair.

PEVs should be aware of the policy regarding identifying the accreditation status of a program. It is important that accredited programs be clearly identified and distinguished from any related non-accredited programs and that the wording specified in the Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual be used whenever the accredited status of a program is noted in public documents.  

I. Exit Statements

Careful use of language and careful construction of statements on findings are essential in writing an exit statement. It is important to remember that the exit statement (when it appears in a draft or final statement) will be read by: 

• The institution.
  Therefore, the exit statement must identify and describe shortcomings clearly and sufficiently enough for the institution to be able to determine appropriate corrective actions for the shortcomings. Additionally, institution personnel preparing the self-study for the next (future) general review will need to understand the basis for the shortcoming (which was identified as long as six years ago) to be able to describe relevant improvements appropriately.
• The commission.
  Therefore, the exit statement must identify and describe shortcomings clearly and sufficiently enough for commissioners, who have not seen the self-study or other visit material, to make correct decisions relative to the findings.
• The next evaluation team.
  Therefore, the exit statement must describe the findings accurately enough so that an evaluator, who has no materials except the final statement from the previous review, can determine exactly what caused shortcomings in the previous review.

Terminology for shortcomings

The terminology that applies to shortcomings (and only to shortcomings) is defined in the ABET Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual. These three terms and their meanings are: 

• Deficiency – A criterion, policy or procedure is not satisfied.
• Weakness –A criterion, policy, or procedure is satisfied to some meaningful extent, but the strength of compliance is not sufficient to ensure that the quality and accreditability of the program will not be compromised prior to the next general review.
• Concern – A criterion, policy, or procedure is satisfied, but an observed potential exists for non-satisfaction in the near future.

Each of these terms applies to a criterion, policy, or procedure. In the CAC and EAC, each criterion, policy, or procedure is considered as a whole, rather than the worst result from considering each requirement of a criterion.

For example, it would not be appropriate in these two commissions to assign a deficiency if 10 of a program's student outcomes are assessed well but one is not assessed at all. Slightly different approaches may be taken in ASAC and ETAC. Additionally, a shortcoming may apply only to a written ABET criterion, policy, or procedure.

For convenience the term "shortcoming" is used within ABET to mean a deficiency, weakness, or concern. But a concern is not really a shortcoming in the literal sense because it requires no corrective action by the institution, whereas deficiencies and weaknesses do require corrective action.

Note that additional discussion of the differences, as well as example scenarios, are provided in Module 5 of the PEV Refresher Training. 

J. Exit Statements (continued)

Writing shortcoming statements

Each shortcoming listed in the exit statement must have the three components listed below. In cases where multiple shortcoming factors apply to a single criterion, each factor contributing to the shortcoming must have the three components. 

1. Criterion citation. The applicable part of the criterion must be stated. It is preferable to do this verbatim, although only the relevant requirements should be excerpted. What is stated for this component forms the basis for comparison with the observed facts that make the reason for the shortcoming clear.
2. What was observed.
   This describes the observed facts that are inconsistent with the stated criterion requirements in the case of a deficiency or weakness and that describe the observation representing the potential for future non-compliance in the case of a concern.
3. The negative effect on the program.
   This is a statement of the deficiency, of the lack of strength of compliance for a weakness, or the potential future non-compliance for a concern.

The examples that follow may not exactly match the criteria for every commission because of variations in criteria among the commissions. The examples are intended to demonstrate good and poor statements of findings and do not necessarily illustrate possible findings for every commission.

The following is an example of a good shortcoming statement that cites a weakness, or a contributing factor for a weakness, with the three component identifiers inserted in brackets following the corresponding text in the statement.

[Criterion citation] Criterion 4 requires that there be a process that assesses the extent to which each student outcome is attained. [What was observed] Although most of the student outcomes were assessed reliably based on actual student performance, the only mechanism used for assessment of student knowledge of contemporary issues (Student Outcome SO-10) is through administration of a survey instrument asking students whether they have knowledge of contemporary issues. [The negative effect on the program] Reliance on self-evaluation does not provide sufficient evidence of actual student knowledge to reliably determine the level of attainment of the required knowledge. Therefore, the strength of compliance with this criterion is not sufficient to ensure continued compliance in the near future. 

Remember that this would be listed under the heading of "Program Weaknesses" or something similar, in which case it may not be necessary to restate specifically that the finding is a weakness. However, a specific commission may prefer that the last sentence be recast something like, "Therefore, the strength of compliance with this criterion is not sufficient to ensure continued compliance in the near future, which contributes to a weakness in Criterion 4."

Remember that the language must be very clear to all three audiences for the statement of findings:

Poor: There is inadequate assessment of outcome SO-10. 

• How does the institution know why what they are doing is inadequate?
• How will the commission be able to decide whether the finding of inadequate assessment is appropriate?
• How will the next evaluation team know what specifically needed changing?
• General note: It often is best to avoid words such as "inadequate" and "insufficient," except in stating a deficiency.

Good: The only mechanism used for assessment of student knowledge of contemporary issues (Student Outcome SO-10) is through administration of a survey instrument asking students whether they have knowledge of contemporary issues.

The language used should correspond to the level of severity of the shortcoming: 

• For a deficiency, the words have to clearly say that the criterion is totally or largely unmet:
• "There is no evidence that. . . "
• "There is no assessment and evaluation process."
• "Not all students are required to engage in a major design experience." 
•  For a weakness, the words have to clearly say that the criterion is met but that strength of compliance is lacking (and how it is lacking needs to be clear):
•  "Although there is a process for the assessment and evaluation for each student outcome, assessment of outcomes 3(d), 3(f), 3(g), 3(h), and 3(i) appears to be done randomly and not according to any schedule. Systematic assessment and evaluation of these outcomes would strengthen compliance with this criterion."
•  "Although the quality of the leadership of the program appears to be adequate currently, there has been a different interim department head during each of the past six years, including the current year, and the current head does not intend to continue in an interim position next year. Stability in the department head position by providing a good leader on a non-interim basis would strengthen compliance with this criterion." 
•  For a concern, the words have to clearly say that the criterion is met and indicate exactly what leads to the concern about the potential for future noncompliance:
•  "It is clear that all of the student outcomes are being assessed, but evaluation of some of the assessment data appears to be inconsistent, possibly because the rubrics are not applied consistently by different instructors. Unless evaluation of the extent to which outcomes are attained is carried out on a consistent basis, future compliance with this criterion may be jeopardized."
•  "Although all of the transcripts examined provided evidence that students meet all graduation requirements, the process by which graduation requirements are audited prior to graduation appears to be ad hoc. This leads to concern that future compliance with this criterion may be jeopardized."

K. Exit statements (continued)

Writing strength statements

Not all commissions use strength statements. When a commission does not use strength statements in the draft statement, strengths may be stated as observations. The discussion of strength statements here applies both to specific strength statements and to observations of strengths.

As is the case with shortcoming statements, statements of strength each have three components: 

1. What was observed.
   This describes the observed facts that represent a program strength.
2. What makes it stand out above the norm.
   This describes why the observed facts are unusual and represent a strength above what is normally expected.
3. What positive effect it has on the program.

Example of a good strength statement: 

Undergraduate research is a very important component of the program. This year, about 20% of the students are involved in undergraduate research, and during the student interview, about 80% of the students stated their intention of going to graduate school after they graduate from the program. The opportunity for an undergraduate research experience significantly enhances the overall quality of the program. 

Example of a poor strength statement:

The faculty members are very dedicated and hard-working. 

• At least two components are missing, and the other (what was observed) is stated without basis.
• This is not a program strength as stated. It is generally expected that faculty members will be dedicated and hard-working in every program.
• Better: If the faculty members really are unusually dedicated to providing an outstanding educational experience, something like the following might be appropriate:
  
  The dedication of the faculty to the quality of the students' education is exceptionally high. Efforts to use a variety of pedagogies for different learning styles and the high level of faculty interaction with students result in a high level of motivation and effort among the students. The results contribute substantially to the overall quality and effectiveness of the program.  

Writing observation statements

• Do not relate to findings relative to criteria.
• Are provided in the interest of general program improvement (not for corrective actions to address potential shortcomings).
• Must not appear prescriptive.
• Have no consequence relative to accreditation if ignored by the institution.

Example of a good observation statement:

Offerings of upper-level elective courses have been limited, and there appears to be significant interest among students in electives that have not been offered recently. A richer selection of elective alternatives would enhance the students' education. 

L. Competency Model

The selection and performance evaluation for ABET program evaluators are based on the PEV Competency Model. PEVs are expected to be:

• Technically current
• Effective communicators
• Interpersonally skilled
• Team oriented
• Professional
• Organized

 Read the Program Evaluator Competency Model.

M. Conclusion

Remember:

An on-site review team (and each team member) is "the face of ABET."

The four big Cs go a long way in promoting a productive review:

• Courtesy
• Consistency
• Clarity
• Confidentiality

N. Additional Information

A more complete document on visit procedures and the role and responsibilities of a PEV can be found at the general PEV Refresher Training website.

For visit related issues and questions, you may contact one of the following (in preferred order):

• Your team chair
• Your commission chair
• The ABET Senior Director of Accreditation, Maryanne Weiss (mweiss@abet.org)
• Your commission adjunct (ABET staff):
  
  ASAC: Amanda Reid (areid@abet.org)
  
  CAC: Art Price (aprice@abet.org)
  
  EAC: Dayne Aldridge (daldridge@abet.org) or Patricia Daniels (pdaniels@abet.org)
  
  ETAC: Frank Hart (fhart@abet.org)

For training or IT-related questions, you may contact the ABET Training Manager, Jorge Higbie (jhigbie@abet.org) and/or ABET Adjunct Training Director, Mike Leonard (mleonard@abet.org).