Two lenses for viewing the professional DPT: Are regional and specialized accreditation commissions seeing the same thing?

Journal of Physical Therapy Education, Spring 2003 by Peterson, Cathy

Why might there he a perception that regional accreditation commissions are getting in our way as we move from awarding the master's degree in physical therapy to the clinical doctorate? Don't they know that the educational experiences afforded hy most physical therapy master's degree programs are more rigorous than those required to earn a doctorate in most other fields? Who do they think they are?

As a physical therapist and an educator who spent nearly a year and a half as a graduate student intern with the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) Senior College Commission, I gained an appreciation for their perspective on doctoral education. While both regional and specialized accreditation commissions have the consumer (individual and global) in mind as the ultimate beneficiary of education, a difference may lie in their specific foci. The specialized accreditation commission focuses on the content and outcomes of the program or department that it accredits, whereas the regional accreditation commission focuses on the consistency of the educational experiences afforded by the institution with the degree offered.

As we move to the clinical doctorate, CAPTE (the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education) is ensuring that physical therapy programs, regardless of the degree they offer, educate and prepare competent clinicians. The expectations for competency have continued to rise as the profession's expectations regarding competency have been redefined. However, WASC seems to be struggling, and rightly so, with the fact that there are no differences in the CAPTE criteria for master's-level and doctoral-level degree programs. From WASC's perspective, we are not offering a doctoral education by simply repackaging the master's degree programs, adding a few courses or units, and calling the degree a clinical doctorate. It is understandable that CAPTE does not want to create a 2-tiered system (MS and DPT) of professionals based on degree. However, how can we, as a profession, argue to move to the clinical doctorate if we cannot clearly articulate the difference between the educational experiences and programmatic outcomes for the respective degrees? What WASC may be looking for is a framework for supporting doctoral education.

What constitutes this doctoral framework? Well, there is no recipe, but it is created by doctorally prepared faculty who regularly contribute to the body of knowledge and engage in interdepartment eollaborations. Mix this with a pool of resources, significant expertise, and a teaspoon of agar, microwave briefly, then store in a petri dish. Does this mean that only large, "Research-1" universities should offer the DPT? Certainly not. Ah1 programs, whether housed in small private colleges or large public universities should look at their internal and external resources and environments and develop the culture that will enable our profession to grow. This shouldn't be viewed as a hoop through which to jump to satisfy some external audit. We need to do this for ourselves.

The future of health care practice and our role therein is uncertain. This means there are no limits to where we can go and what we can do. Our graduates must do more than use evidence effectively. Now more than ever, we need our graduates to contribute to the body of evidence on which we will build our future: original research should be a requirement for earning a doctoral degree. Administrators and educators may ask: How many medical schools require their students to conduct original research before they graduate? How many dental schools? Osteopathy? Podiatry? Chiropractic medicine? Let's not look at how others are limiting the potentials of their respective professions and use them as our standard. We claim to have a culture of evidence-based practice, and as we transition to the doctoring profession, now is the time to lead the way.

In closing, I am submitting this letter to the editor to encourage further dialogue on this subject within the Education section. I hope that we, as colleagues, may use fa Journal of Physical Therapy Education as a forum for expanding our horizons at this pivotal time in our profession.

[Editor's note: The Journai invites your comments on this letter and welcomes letters to the Editor on other education-related topics of interest.]

Cathy Peterson, PT, EdD

Assistant Professor

Department of Physical Therapy

University of the Pacific

3601 Pacific Ave

Stockton, CA 95211

cpeterson@uop.edu