ICE Leadership Meeting

I had the opportunity to attend a leadership meeting that was hosted by the Institute for Credentialing Excellence ("ICE") for senior staffers' from organizations in the credentialing industry. This one-day event covered a range of topics and everyone seemed pleased with the meeting's outcome. One obvious outcome was the social/professional connections that were started or recharged among the participants. The levels of credentialing - organizational maturity was from new programs to programs that are branching out into new ventures, some outside of credentialing. Regardless of ones experience in the industry - there was something for everyone. Be it to validate what your organization is currently doing or not, to the challenges of computer-based testing.

For me, what I walked away with is a rethinking of the current credentialing model. The industry has expanded in different directions over the past few years, but for the most part how we develop examinations, set standards, etc., has not. The argument can be made that a big part of what certification organizations do is "manufacturing."

In the last half-century there has been countless advancements in technology, engineering, materials science, etc., that has changed how products are manufactured. Would 'smart phones" be available or as effective if there was no improvements to cellular networks, chip technology, etc. What drove these charges is research - where is the research for our industry? Does our industry have a research agenda? If so who are the players? If research supports changes in how we can conduct our "manufacturing", will the credentialing industry embrace these findings?

All to often we hear, "That's an interesting suggestion, but I don't think we can do that because .." We all might want to consider to start acting on the stuff we don't do rather than the stuff we do - over and over and over, etc.

The 2010 ICE Annual Conference, ATP Conference, and CLEAR Meeting are
are all on the horizon,I am hopeful the we will begin to hear some new manufacturing (credentialing/certification) sounds that will dampen those who want to maintain the status quo by using and/or promoting 20th century methods in a 21st century credentialing world.

Certification Eligibility: Who Really Establishes It?

One of the critical responsibilities of certifying entities is establishing the requirements for candidate eligibility. Third-party accreditation bodies for professional certification and assessment-based certificate programs require that certifying entities set these standards, which candidates must satisfy to become credentialed. I think if you polled any number of organizations, especially those programs or organizations that are accredited, they would report, unequivocally, that they set the standard for candidate eligibility. I beg to differ.

The initial driving force behind most, if not all, certification and licensure efforts has been a profession’s membership society. As “Good Shepherd” for the profession during the developmental phase of certification/licensure program it was not uncommon and made reasonable sense to incorporate as is and/or slightly modified the sponsoring organization’s standards, policies, requirements into the governing documents for the certification program. After all if these are good enough for the profession, they have to be good enough for the public.

When reviewing a certification or licensure entity’s eligibility criteria it is not uncommon to find language that reads “Must be a graduate of an educational program accredited by____________. The name of the accredited program typically includes the name of the profession and in some instances the name of the professional society. This is very common practice in the allied health arena. This practice is the norm, especially if there is not an alternate pathway for accessing the requisite knowledge, skill, and experiences in order to qualify for certification/licensure.

Do certification or licensure entities have a legitimate role in helping establish the criteria for educational program accreditation, especially if graduation from such a program is a requirement for certification or licensure? I don’t think this is an unreasonable question.

Relying on third-party standard is not uncommon and very efficient. At the very least it provides some level of assurance that all candidates have been exposed to uniform or similar educational standards and competencies.

However, we live in competitive times. If a profession’s vision for the future becomes the reality (i.e., change in eligibility) for certification or licensure, will competing professions feel compelled to follow this path?

What verification from the educational program accreditation body should a certification/licensure body request so that the certification body’s leaders can explain and ultimately defend their decision to maintain the requirement of “graduation from an educational l program accredited by ____________”?

Answers to the following questions may useful to a certification/accreditation agency when considering the adoption of a third-party educational program standard that impacts eligibility:

i. What is the rationale for a change in accreditation standards, especially if a higher degree requirement is part of the change?
ii. What is the evidence to support the rationale for the change?
iii. Will the change have an impact on the populations served by certificants/licensees?
iv. Will the change have an impact on candidate diversity?
v. Does evidence exist that validates that the profession’s body of knowledge has expanded?
vi. Is there linkage between the examination blueprint and the accreditation standards?
vii. Who is driving the change (employers, payors, practitioners, etc.) and why?
viii. Will the change impact future access to certification/licensure to candidate pools who currently have access?
ix. How will the public benefit?

All of us in the certification/licensure business should at least consider asking the question, “ Is this change in the best interests of our public?” or is the change “best” for someone else’s interest?