A. Travel Policy and Procedures

If you did not participate in an accreditation review in 2010 or 2011, there have been several changes in policies and procedures related to travel. The travel policies and procedures given in Module 1 are current for the 2012-13 cycle. Log in to access the current Travel Policy and Procedures Manual.

Reminders about some notable changes are:

• ABET’s travel agent is Travel Destinations. In order to use Travel Destinations for online reservations, a profile must be created. If you have not created a Travel Destinations profile, Login to MyABET and click on Travel Information for instructions on how to access the Travel Destinations website.
• Login to MyABET and click on Submit Expense Reports for instructions, access to the expense reporting system, and contact information if you need assistance.
• 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.
   

B. Criteria Changes

There are no changes to the general criteria for the 2012-13 cycle. There are some revisions to program criteria for various commissions. A summary of changes in policies or criteria can be found in Keep up with Accreditation Changes.

There were criteria changes beginning in 2011-12 for all ABET commissions. These are the “harmonized” criteria that were approved by the ABET Board of Directors in October 2010. Criteria 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 are identical for all four commissions. Criterion 6 is essentially the same for ASAC, CAC, and ETAC, with some differences for the EAC. Criteria 3 (Student Outcomes) and 5 (Curriculum) are the criteria with significant differences among the commissions.

For those who did not participate in an ABET program review in 2011, the following are some of the important aspects of changes in the harmonized parts of the criteria:

• Definitions
  Some of the definitions at the beginning of each commission’s criteria document have changed. “Program Outcomes” has been replaced by “Student Outcomes” in the definitions and throughout the criteria. The definitions of “Program Educational Objectives” and “Assessment” have been expanded in an attempt to clarify the definitions. (One possibly subtle change is that the use of “attain”, rather than “achieve” or a similar word, relative to the attainment of objectives and outcomes is now standardized throughout all criteria. Care should be taken to use the appropriate form of “attain” in exit statements and other documents when referring to objectives or outcomes.)
• Criterion 1
  Although Criterion 1 has been reworded significantly for some commissions, the basic requirements have not changed substantially. Any changes to be noted will be addressed in Module 3, Commission Updates.
• Criterion 2
  There are significant changes for the CAC and EAC Criterion 2. These changes will be described in the Pre-visit Preparation CAC and EAC Updates.
• Criterion 4
  The main change in Criterion 4 is for the EAC, which is described in the Pre-visit Preparation EAC Updates.
• Other criteria
  Other criteria changes will be addressed in each commission’s Pre-visit Preparation Updates, as appropriate.
• Program Criteria
  Each commission’s criteria document is divided into General Criteria (Criteria 1-8) and Program Criteria. Note that there no longer is a Criterion 9. Care should be taken not to refer to Criterion 9 in any exit statements or other documents.

Some of the wording changes in the criteria are minor, but care should be taken to use the new wording when citing a shortcoming. Experienced PEVs especially should take care to review the exact wording of a criterion, or part of a criterion, before citing the criterion in a shortcoming statement. It is important to use the wording in the current criteria, rather than to use similar wording from previous criteria.

C.  Accreditation Policy and Procedure Changes

For the 2012-13 cycle, revisions to the Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual were minimal. Two changes that should be noted are: 

• Section II.G.5.a.(4)(f) – This section now allows a team of two (one team chair and one program evaluator) for the comprehensive re-accreditation visit of a single program.
• Section II.G.7. – This section has been revised to remove all constraints for programs seeking initial accreditation to request two-year retroactive coverage for graduates. 
   

For those who did not participate in an accreditation review in 2011, the Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual (APPM) that became effective for evaluations in the 2011-12 cycle had more extensive revisions. A summary of the changes can be found on the ABET website under Accreditation and Policy Manual (APPM) Changes for the 2011-2012 Review Cycle
Some revisions that should be noted are:

• II.A. Public Release of Accreditation Information By the Institution. Team members should note that the wording for designating the accredited status of a program has changed (II.A.6). The new wording includes only the URL for ABET's website, and does not include ABET’s address or phone number. (Note that potential shortcomings relative to section II.A of the APPM will almost always be detectable well before a visit by looking at catalogs and other documents related to the program as well as institutional and program web pages. Furthermore, most shortcomings can be corrected quickly and easily, although full implementation could be delayed until the next printing of printed materials. Potential shortcomings relative to II.A should be reported to the team chair as soon as possible so that they can be communicated to appropriate institutional representatives and possibly corrected by the time of the visit.)
• II.G. Program Reviews.
• II.G.6. Comprehensive Review. This section has been reworked and is more explicit about some parts of an on-site comprehensive review. Team members should review this section carefully.
• II.G.12. Accreditation Actions. The SC action has been replaced by SCV, An additional action, SCR, has been added to allow the option of a report rather than a visit for an SC.
• Terminology. Some standard terminology relative to review visits should be noted:
• Instead of “program evaluation,” use “program review,” “accreditation review,” etc.
• Use “on-site review” to refer to the visit to an institution to review one or more programs. Similarly, it is the “on-site review team” (or “review team” or “team”) rather than the “visiting team.”

Team members should review the Accreditation Policy and Procedures Manual (APPM) carefully.

 

D. Forms Revision

As noted above, the criteria and APPM have undergone recent changes, and forms used for program reviews have also been revised both for harmonization and to reflect the revised criteria. Therefore it is especially important that team members for a comprehensive review download and use the most recent versions of criteria and APPM, and all forms needed for the visit. Team members for interim visits, including SC visits, will obtain instructions on the criteria and forms to be used from the team chair.

Download the current criteria, APPM, and on-site review documents.

Note also that the self studies for all commissions changed last year. As is the case for other forms and documents, the self study changes are due to a combination of criteria revisions and efforts to harmonize the form and content of the four commission’s self-study templates. PEVs may find that expected information that is not directly relevant to the criteria has been eliminated from their commission’s self study, and that other information has been relocated or reorganized in order to achieve harmonization among the commissions’ self studies. The revised self studies have attempted to eliminate all requested information that is not relevant to accreditation criteria.

Remember to download the new criteria, APPM, and forms for a comprehensive visit. Please do not use forms from a previous cycle!
 

E. Criteria 2 to 4

Criteria 2, 3, and 4 continue to be the most frequently-cited criteria in shortcoming statements. The recent revisions in these three criteria and the definitions may help alleviate some of the difficulties for programs in understanding the intent of the criteria requirements, but additional requirements, such as the requirement in Criterion 2 for a documented process for the periodic review and updating of program educational objectives (new for CAC and EAC), may introduce additional shortcomings that would not have existed previously. The Refresher Training for Program Evaluators is a good reference for all the issues address in the Pre-visit Preparation.

Refresher Training Module 4 provides an excellent review of important points relative to the assessment of program objectives and student outcomes. It is recommended that all PEVs review this module prior to an on-site visit. Some important points from the module and from recent experience in conducting program reviews are:

• Program educational objectives that are stated as student outcomes (according to the definitions in the criteria) represent a shortcoming relative to Criterion 2.
• Attainment of program educational objectives can be assessed using surveys, typically surveys of alumni and employers, but the information collected in the surveys must relate to specific objectives for effective assessment. In particular, collecting data on actual accomplishments of graduates, self-reported or otherwise, is more effective than a general self analysis of the level of attainment of objectives.
• Collecting more data relative to the attainment of student outcomes does not necessarily improve the reliability of evaluating the extent of outcomes attainment, and depending on how the data are used, may actually decrease the reliability of the evaluation. It is important to recognize that an evaluation of outcomes attainment should evaluate the extent to which graduates (collectively) have attained each outcome by the time of graduation. 
• It is not necessary to assess the level of attainment of an outcome for every graduate. Similarly, it is not necessary to assess the level of attainment for an outcome every year. Appropriate statistical sampling procedures may be used in the assessment of outcomes and objectives.
• Constituencies need not be involved in the establishment and updating of student outcomes. The establishment and maintenance of outcomes may involve only the faculty of a program..

These points address some of the issues that have resulted in confusion or potential inconsistencies in findings during past program reviews.

Please review the updates for your commission and then GO TO THE PROFICIENCY ASSESSMENT TO COMPLETE THE PRE-VISIT PREPARATION.