Doctor of Audiology Program Director Survey

Diana C. Emanuel, Ph.D.
Towson University
Program directors were
not informed and did
not provide input on
praxis changes but
changes have impacted
their programs.
Positive comments:
 Efficient/streamlined
 Fewer recommendation letters to write
 Computes GPA
 Well organized
Work in progress
 Slow
 Issues with data management
Just over 1/3 are using
CSDCAS and most of
the comments are
Large increase seen just in
last 1-2 years
Students are applying to more
About ¾ of Au.D.
programs reported
recent growth in
number of applicants
Quality of students is improving n = 2
Students do not honor
commitment to attend a
About 1/3 report
increase in non-CSD
applicants but only 1/5
are admitting more
non-CSD applicants
Recommend but not require
additional courses
Conditional admission
Case by case examination
We prefer non-CSD; AuD program
contains all they need
Programs vary widely
in requirements for
non-CSD students.
CSD students no better or worse
than non-CSD students
CSD students need better STEM
Depends on the program
Too much emphasis on SLP
n =2
Wide variety in ability
About ½ of the
program directors
think CSD students are
prepared for an Au.D.
program. Students
should have STEM
Later offer of funding from other
n = 20
n = 14
Admitted from waitlist elsewhere
n = 13
No problem with students withdrawing
Chose closer/less expensive school
Accepted multiple offers; chose later
n =1
2/3 of program
directors lose students
after they accept
admission; Most
frequency reason is
late offer of funding
from other school
Not enough qualified applicants
(too few Ph.D.s with research
Inadequate salary in academia
n =1
Workload issues (too many classes
across diverse subject areas)
n =1
About ½ report
moderate to great
difficulty recruiting
faculty; few listed
reasons, but too few
Ph.D. applicants was
most common
Most programs do not
have difficulty retaining
audiology faculty.
The majority of Au.D.
faculty are not eligible
for tenure/tenure track
positions/tenure; Most
are eligible for
Clinical faculty/preceptors must hold CCC but
research faculty do not
Because we also have a speech program/required
for accreditation
n =2
We have discussed dropping the CCC requirement
Required if participating in revenue sharing
Paid by department
n =1
“Nobody around here is interested in pulling the
ladder up after themselves.”
n =1
Just under ½ of Au.D.
programs require
faculty to hold the
Just over ½ of Au.D.
programs require CCC-A
for externship supervisors;
about ½ have little
difficulty finding these
Comments: Students choice (n=12),
needed for state licensure (n=1),
needed for program accreditation
Waivers (n)
Programs (n)
Just over 1/3 of programs
have a 4th year CCC-A waiver;
over ½ of these have an
informed consent process;
mean of 5 waivers reported
per program with waiver
Just over ½ of
directors feel the
Au.D. should be a 4year program.
3-year program is just M.S. + CFY (n = 2)
Programs should be competency based (n = 4)
We need to get away from “minimum to
get by” mentality (n = 1)
It can be shorter and still good (n = 3)
There should be an unsure box, not
totally convinced of “yes” (n = 1)
Economic factors (n = 2)
4th year externship is a bad model (n = 3)
Other clinical doctorates (N.P.; P.A.) are 3-yr (n = 1)
10 years out we are still asking about length; some
programs can’t deliver coursework and clinic; it’s
embarrassing (n = 1)
• 33 directors made comments:
• Change to a 3- year program (n = 11)
Omit externship as part of degree (e.g., 1-yr residency) (n = 6)
Undergraduate program in audiology (n = 1)
Better connections between clinic/didactic/research (n=1)
Economic sustainability for externship (n=1)
Greater emphasis on STEM (n=1)
More specialty certification (n=1)
One accrediting body (CAA) (n=1)
Most (80%) provided
Minimize influence of industry (n=1)
suggestions; 1/3
Licensure only for supervision (n=1)
suggested separating
externship from degree
Vast majority of
programs use course,
clinic, and programlevel assessment
9/11 (82%) of “other” indicated
Most programs are
tracking with
spreadsheets or
Programs are using
surveys extensively
to examine the
efficacy of clinical
“other” = interview (n=2), site visit (n=1), “we
review everything and ask everyone” (n=1)
“other” = grand rounds (n=7), capstone
presentation (n=6), comps (n=3), other
presentation (n=3), counseling (n=1).
Programs are using
multiple formats for
assessment of oral
and written skills for
Au.D. students
“other” = clinic report writing (n=7),
other project (n=4), comps (n=3).
*Note: flaw in survey – directors could not move
ahead without answering the question
• Department not university requirement (n=4)
• Delay is due to student not program (n=3)
• Time consuming (n=2)
• Clinic limits size more than project (n=2)
• Very important part of the program (n=2)
Thesis-type projects are
required by ½ of programs;
this limits program size for
1/3 of programs and delays
graduation for students in
1/5 of programs.
Clinical grand rounds student presentations (or simulated cases) on a weekly basis is critical for binding the didactic and clinical learning
Both oral and written assessments are necessary due to the nature of the AuD program
Assessment has not (yet) yielded insights that have resulted in improvements commensurate with the time investment.
At the end of each semester, clinical and academic faculty meet and discuss every student's progress in skills, knowledge, and professionalism. A report summarizing the discussion is provided to each student and placed in
their file.
Build ongoing and user friendly assessment tools. Actively analyze and use the data that you collect as part of the ongoing assessment. Engage the faculty, staff and students in the ongoing assessment processes that are
Collect useful data - that is something of interest/concern you can actually act on once you have the information; do not be afraid to institute remediation plans; should include combination of objective (e.g. activity/hours)
and subjective (ratings) measures assessment guidelines for research projects established/shared apriori
Communication amongst faculty to insure appropriate training is essential.
Don't admit weak students Hold frequent meetings with each cohort of students to facilitate their progress through the program
Don't be afraid to critically assess the existing program. We must develop 21st century methods of training audiologists. We are still using many of the same models from the mid-late 20th century!!
Find what works for your program and don't assume what other programs use is what is best for your students.
Have specific written expectations for student skill levels as they progress through the program. Have a consistent clinical rotation for students in the first two years so that external supervisors know what level of skills to
expect from students. Have a 'sheltered' environment that students can stay in or return to if their skill level does not advance as required.
If you are going to be accredited by CAA be sure you have a paper trail. Do not accept below par students. You will pay for it time wise in the long run (or else they will drop out and your Dean will not be happy!)
Make sure all faculty on board with participation in grading/creating the assessments, i.e., adjustment may have to be made in length/format of assessment -set clear guidelines/timelines to students on steps taken if
assessment not met adequately
Our summative oral assessment includes the presentation of prepared case studies to the student to discuss and assess before our entire faculty. This model has worked well for us.
Provide practice and emphasis on the PRAXIS, since it is central to getting licensed, and difficult to prepare students for. Provide opportunities for all students in the first three years to meet weekly in an interactive seminar
to build relationships and comradre (spell that), provide good one on one mentoring between student and a faculty, develop a strong student run SAA etc. etc. etc.
The future of audiology education will not be found in the models of past audiology education. As long as audiology education is housed in CSD programs and under SLP leadership and dominance, audiology programs will
not advance to the autonomy needed to support the new profession. New AuD program directors: sever your AuD program from CSD and be independent and function autonomously!
Use interviews as part of admissions
We are still learning.
We assess students at the end of each year of the program using written and practical exams we have developed ourselves. The development of those exams (to assess the most important concepts of each year) resulted in
major changes to our curriculum and was an important process for us. The administration of the exams every year serves as an important diagnostic tool for the students and for the program.
We don't all need to be clones of each other, but there are some areas that need to be standardized. We have done a good job of transitioning to the AuD degree but we're not finished. We should not become complacent;
rather, there is still a lot of work we need to do with our educational model. Education needs to be placed highly on the priority list of our national organizations and we all need to work together (individually and as
organizations) to continue moving forward.
We have put into place an on-site interview since the past five years as part of the admissions process. We have since then been able to enroll a higher caliber of students, increased our class sizes by about 40%, have almost
a 100 retention rate (lost one student last fall-first time in five years),and had almost all students who accept come to our program. Also, having a dedicated faculty to deal with off-campus placements as well as fourth-year
placements has been extremely beneficial. We did not require students from non-SHS majors to take any leveling courses and instead had a "boot camp" for a week before class where they crammed all the information. That
did not work. Since the past 6 years we do require leveling courses and we probably lose some students but the students that do enter the program are better prepared, more motivated, and more likely to complete the
Work on competency based assessments.
You have to look at your entire Au.D. program and select the assessment tools that fit that program.
You'll learn--don't worry.
Great suggestions
for new program
directors; these
will be posted
Vast majority of
programs have
placement person
Percentage of students
receiving comp.
Number (%) of programs
2 (5%)
5 (12%)
6 (15%)
28 (68%)
Type of comp.
Number (%) of programs
41 (100%)
30 (73%)
25 (61%)
13 (32%)
Tuition remission
4 (10%)
1 (2%)
The majority of
students receive
compensation; most
frequent compensation
types are: stipend,
traineeship, salary
Mid-program M.S.
Clinical site requirement
It is wrong “should be
abolished” (n=5)
“Relic”/bad idea/not
legal/ethical issue (n=19)
Not intended for Au.D.
students (n=3)
Clinic has to look out for its
own interests (n=2)
Because of a site
requirement (n=2)
University policy (n=1)
Just over 1/10th of
programs award a
master’s degree but
1/3 have tried to place
students at sites that
require it. Directors
would like to see it
SLP coursework is missing (n=2); students
need more pediatric hours (n=1)
Percentage of
Number (%) of
21 (54%)
3 (8%)
2 (5%)
13 (33%)
Temporary licensure is
commonly required for
externship; it is usually
easy for Au.D. students
to obtain
About ½ strongly agree
CAuDP should focus on
issues with masters
required for externship;
only 1/5 felt strongly about
the workforce study

similar documents