NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED561669
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 2013
Pages: 172
Abstractor: As Provided
Reference Count: N/A
ISBN: 978-1-3034-6808-7
The Benefits and Costs of Accreditation of Undergraduate Medical Education Programs Leading to the MD Degree in the United States and Its Territories
Muhtadi, Dalal J.
ProQuest LLC, Ed.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California
This study assessed the value of accreditation of all 126 fully-accredited four-year undergraduate medical education programs leading to the MD degree in the US through two lenses, "perceived benefits and costs" from the perspective of the leadership of internal stakeholders of the aforementioned programs. The online survey was sent to a random cluster sample of 1,096 department chairs/assistant/associate, faculty members and other lead administrators in the programs. With a response rate of 8%, a total of 87 usable responses were received and analyzed. The descriptive statistic results of the survey indicated that approximately 74% of participants were "department chairs, assistants or associates", 77% held only "one position", 51% worked in "public" programs and 78% worked in programs that graduated "more than 100 students" in the last academic year. Participants worked in programs that were located in 'all five regions' of the continental US and approximately 72% of them "participated" in the accreditation process of their programs. Inferential statistical analyses including univariate and multivariate logistical regression were performed for the dependent variables of benefits, costs, costs vs. benefits (cost-benefits) and five independent variables (participation in the accreditation process, number of positions per participant, program type, region and number of graduates in last academic year). At a 95% confidence limit and Type I error of 0.05, the reliability coefficient (Cronbach's alpha) had a high value of 0.913 for benefits and 0.758 for costs and a high magnitude of effect (odds ratio). For benefits, results indicated that respondents who "did not participate" in the accreditation process were approximately 2.4 times (141%) more likely to report "high benefit" than people who "participated" in the process after adjusting for all variables in the model. By "program type", participants who worked in "private" programs were approximately 2.3 times (130%) more likely to report "high benefit" than those who worked in "public" programs. For costs, participants who worked in "private" programs were approximately 2.2 times (120%) more likely to report a 'low' cost of accreditation after adjusting for all variables in the model. Upon being asked to rate "overall level" of costs vs. benefits (cost-benefits), results indicated that participants who "did not participate" in the accreditation process were approximately 50% less likely to report "benefits exceed or equal costs" than participants who "participated" in the process. Furthermore, a statistically-significant correlation (p < 0.001) was found between the "overall benefits score" and "cost-benefit". Approximately 78% of participants who reported "costs exceeded benefits" also reported the "overall benefit score" to be "low." Finally, in ranking 11 benefits of specialized accreditation, participants rated the "provision of a structured mechanism to assess the medical education programs" as the "highest" benefit of accreditation followed by the role of accreditation as "a stimulus for program improvement." "Improved overall quality of program" and "benchmarking" were both in third place. For five costs of specialized accreditation, participants ranked the "total amount of time" spent by internal stakeholders on accreditation as the "highest" cost followed by "total amount of effort" in second and third places. Based on participants' opinions/perceptions (actual needs), this study offered significant recommendations to improve the approach, process and outcome of accreditation. They included: continuity of quality control and improvement, fostering innovation, use of technology, enhancing leadership, improving horizontal and vertical collaboration as well as provision of clear information, proper guidance, focus on outcomes vs. standards and flexibility by the accrediting agency. In a culture of trust, mutual respect, collaboration and open communication, these recommendations can enhance the value of accreditation by the LCME, promote excellence in the quality of medical education/programs and their ultimate mission of extending high standards of patient care nationally and globally. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page:]
ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Tel: 800-521-0600; Web site:
Publication Type: Dissertations/Theses - Doctoral Dissertations
Education Level: Higher Education; Postsecondary Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A