An analysis of doctoral programs of health education

American Journal of Health Studies, Spring, 2004 by Stephen J. Notaro, Thomas W. O'Rourke, James M. Eddy

Abstract: This study describes the data used to rank doctoral programs of health education based on the productivity of the faculty and the scholarly activity of doctoral students. No other data set of this type currently exists. Summative information is provided for each of the eight variables used to rank the 28 programs. The data show a wide degree of variation for each of the variables. Further analysis demonstrates that many faculty and programs are successful in obtaining external funding, publishing in refereed journals, and mentoring doctoral students. The data provide what would be needed for programs to improve their ranking.

**********

Although rankings of higher education institutions and programs are commonplace, it wasn't until recently that a ranking of doctoral programs in health education was completed (Notaro, O'Rourke, & Eddy, 2000). Academic quality rankings are available for a number of disciplines or fields of academic study. Data used to develop these ranking often are not made available to the reader. This study describes the data used in "Ranking of Doctoral Programs of Health Education" (Notaro, O'Rourke, & Eddy, 2000). Provided is a profile of program faculty scholarly productivity and student indices of scholarly activity. Administrators, faculty, prospective students and organizations concerned with professional preparation may find the results informative.

Rankings are an effective device in any subject area used to compare items that are difficult to measure. Certainly, academic programs are an area difficult to compare. Vast numbers of universities with an array of similar programs warrant a ranking system. Despite the multitude of articles providing academic quality rankings across universities or in individual disciplines, there is not one accepted ranking methodology. The literature evidences four major types of contemporary methods to rank academic programs.

* First is ranking academic quality by reputation (Roush, 1995). In this method, individuals knowledgeable in a discipline or esteemed in their field are asked to rank order programs.

* Second are academic quality rankings based on faculty productivity. Common measurements of faculty productivity include the number of articles published, the number of citations one's work receives in the literature and monies generated from grants and contracts (West & Rhee, 1995; Taubes, 1993; Webster, 1986; Tauer & Tauer, 1984).

* Third are rankings based on student achievements. These include such measures as SAT and GRE (standardized) test scores and placement of students in leadership or academic positions upon graduation.

Fourth are rankings based on institutional resources. These include measures such as the number of volumes in the library, student-faculty ratio and the amount of resources expended per student (West & Rhee, 1995; Webster, 1986). This study included data for two methods: faculty productivity and student achievement, as both can be employed to measure faculty productivity and doctoral student activity which is the measure of academic quality in this study. Eight variables, four pertaining to faculty and four regarding doctoral students, weighted by scholars and leaders in the field of health education were used to rank the programs (see methods and data collection procedures for a detailed description of the study). Reputation, although an often used measure of academic quality and a valuable indicator of perceived performance, was not the focus of this study because, by nature, it is highly subjective and of questionable usefulness (Notaro, O'Rourke, & Eddy, 2000).

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The significance of this study is twofold. Data from this study would appear to be useful to university administrators, faculty, students, and organizations concerned with professional preparation in health education. Administrators may find academic rankings useful in the allocation and acquisition of resources (Miller, Tien, & Peebler, 1996; Scott & Mitias, 1996; Webster, 1992). Faculty have an interest to see where one's program or institution "stands" against other similar programs (Scott & Mitias, 1996; Katz & Eagles, 1996; Lowry & Silver, 1996; Goodwin, 1995). Many students utilize rankings to determine where to continue their academic study (Miller, Tien, & Peebler, 1996; Scott & Mitias, 1996; Webster, 1992; Morrison, 1987). Similarly, organizations interested in professional preparation may find the results useful. It is anticipated that the presentation of these data will provide benchmark measures for those wishing to enhance program quality.

Secondly, just as this study is based on an extensive review of the ranking literature, the use of multiple indices employed to rank programs can enhance efforts to improve research methodology in future ranking studies in health education as well as in other disciplines. As the methodology evolves, the authors invite comments from the field.

PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY

This study provides a description of the data for each of the eight variables used to rank doctoral programs of health education. The variables used to rank programs measure academic productivity by: articles and citations in key selected journals, editorships in the same selected journals, external funding for research and contracts, scholarly activity of doctoral students, doctoral student/faculty ratio, faculty mentoring and placement of doctoral students, and doctoral student support including assistantships for teaching and research. Previous research have identified leading journals of health education which would be appropriate for this study (Laflin, Horowitz, & Nimms, 1999; Price & Robinson, 1999; Everett, Casler, & Summers, 1994).