|
Journal of Professional Exercise Physiology |
 |
Jesse Pittsley, PhD
|
| The American College of
Sports Medicine Accreditation Program
Jesse Pittsley Ph.D. Winston-Salem State University Human Performance and Sport Sciences Department Winston-Salem, NC 27110 The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) is now offering Exercise Science/Physiology Accreditation for undergraduate and graduate programs. I learned this while attending an informative symposium conducted by Colvin [1] and Thompson [2] at the most recent Southeastern ACSM (SEACSM) meeting. Like most college faculty members at predominantly teaching institutions, the majority of my time is spent with the daily tasks of teaching, grading, letter writing, fielding phone calls, and something called “strategic planning.” With those rarely complete, I admit to taking little time to explore websites of major professional organizations. Consequently, I knew very little about the ACSM accreditation plan before attending the 2005 SEACSM conference. I figured ACSM would surely move in that direction, but I had no idea which path it would take. The purpose of this paper is to examine the current ACSM accreditation plan to the established accreditation procedures of the American Society of Exercise Physiologists (ASEP). The ACSM University Connection
The ACSM Accreditation
Anesthesiologist AssistantAs one can see, CAAHEP accredits a variety of programs ranging from 2-year technical programs to 4-year undergraduate degrees. During his presentation at the 2005 SEACSM meeting, Thompson [2] stated very clearly that ACSM felt it was very important for the accrediting body to be separate from ACSM. He stated that it would be unethical for ACSM to “sell its own product” by having both the accreditation and certifications under the same organization. To support this separation, the Committee on Accreditation for the Exercise Sciences (CoAES) was established in 2004. At its homepage (http://www.coaes.org/), the organization states: “The primary role of the CoAES is to establish standards and guidelines for academic programs that facilitate the preparation of students seeking employment in the health, fitness and exercise industry. The secondary role of the CoAES is to establish and implement a process of self-study, review, and recommendation for all programs seeking CAAHEP accreditation.”Through CoAES, ACSM has proposed the accreditation of undergraduate programs (labeled Exercise Science on the CoAES site) and has also proposed the accreditation of graduate programs through the two separate tracts of Clinical and Applied Exercise Physiology (labeled Exercise Physiology on the CoAES site). Standards and guidelines for pursing these endorsements are available on both the CoAES and CAAHEP sites. Exact outcome objectives (KSAs) are available through application to CAAHEP, in the new edition of ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, and on the University Connection page of the ACSM site. During his presentation, Thompson [2] advised those interested in pursuing accreditation to complete the “Quick Study” documents available on the University Connection page. Once a program completes the initial evaluation paperwork and pays the appropriate fees CAAHEP initiates an on-site site and the final evaluation by the CAAHEP committee. Size and Power
For an organization full of smart people, one must question how they could mess this up so badly! With its size, ACSM has grown very powerful. When it offers a certification, a registry, and now an accreditation process it can easily squash the efforts of other organization without the primary intention of malice. Consequently, ACSM has the potential to advance exercise physiology to levels not visualized by many members of the organization. Despite this power, exercise physiologists, under the governance of ACSM, appear to have advanced very little against physical therapists and nurses. It is my opinion that a properly designed and enforced accreditation program is a crucial aspect of moving exercise physiology forward. I have supported the American Society of Exercise Physiologists' (ASEP) accreditation program from its inception. When ACSM announced its program I was very interested in its approach. Approaches to Accreditation
With that stated, my disagreement in ACSM will never center on encouraging competence in exercise physiology. ACSM is a large organization full of smart people who have created successful certification programs in the attempt of improving and standardizing the knowledge level of those in exercise professions. In terms of making people more competent, ACSM gets an “A.” Unfortunately, producing smart graduates is only one step in creating a profession that can hold its own weight in health care. Furthermore, raising the standard of learning objectives may be the easiest step in the process. The real blood, sweat, and tears start flowing when programs adapt a standard name, the same title, require the same certification exam, and start fighting for a niche in the employment sector. It is during those times of trial that an organization stops being everyone’s “buddy” and starts to draw lines in the sand. That is when groups start getting offended and the true growing pains begin. ASEP has been feeling this pain from the time of its inception and has understandably become numb to scratches and abrasions endured while taking the road less traveled. To illustrate the difference between let’s examine some quotes from the “frequently asked questions” of the CoAES homepage.
“To achieve consistency among accredited programs and practitioners of the professions, and the publics served by accreditation, it is appropriate to require the following "Recommendation" as part of the accredited status. The Board recommends that the academic degree should be changed from "Exercise Science or an academic degree of some other title" to "Exercise Physiology" to embrace the ASEP perspective.”Through this recommendation, ASEP is simply following the gold-standard set by other health care professions. Physical therapists are trained in physical therapy departments and graduate with a degree in physical therapy. What a novel idea! I see no reason why exercise physiology should be different. In regards to curriculum objectives, ACSM appears to feel that most programs will be able to earn accreditation with only minor changes to their course objectives. I also find this rather surprising. I recall examining the curricula of roughly 40 exercise science related programs and concluding that the majority would not meet the accreditation standards set forth by ASEP (4). Considering the objectives set by both organizations are similar, one must conclude that the two organizations are approaching accreditation from different perspectives. What is obvious is that the ASEP leadership and the ACSM leadership approach exercise physiology differently. ASEP has modeled itself after other major professional health care organizations by embracing a more exclusive and demanding strategy. Instead of the “come one, come all” perspective, ASEP is working to establish a specific identity for exercise physiologists through the standardization of title, degree, curriculum and certification. The ACSM scheme is more diluted and, unfortunately, considering the power and size of ACSM its accreditation process could have been so much more. Reference
|