AIHP’s Position on Accreditation
It is AIHP’s position on accreditation that in addition to assessing the exam, course content should also be assessed to ensure that it is held to the highest standard with respect to accuracy and applicability.
Introduction
Accreditation, by definition, is a formal, independent verification that a program or institution meets established quality standards[1]. As defined by the U.S. Department of Education, the goal of accreditation is, ‘… to ensure that institutions of higher education meet acceptable levels of quality.’[2] With respect to fitness education, this should relate directly to the quality of the content of the education material, as well as the assessment method.
The US fitness education industry is not governed/regulated like many other industries. Meaning, it does not have a singular licensing exam or similar to certify that someone is a personal trainer/coach. Alternatively, the fitness education industry is primarily driven by certifications to educate and certify fitness professionals, each of which has their own exams to assess competency. As there are multiple fitness certifications on the market and a lack of a singular licensing exam, the industry has identified third-party accreditation as a means to establish credibility.
Background
Established in 1977 in cooperation with the US government, The National Commission for Health Certifying Agencies (currently, the Institute for Credentialing Excellence – I.C.E.) was developed to create standards for certification programs. Presently, the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) is the accreditation body of I.C.E. The NCCA is the primary accreditation utilized by the fitness industry. The National Strength and Conditioning Association’s (NSCA) personal training certification exam was the first fitness certification exam to gain NCCA accreditation in 1983. Since then, other fitness education organizations have followed suit with having their exams becoming NCCA accredited.
Discussion
AIHP appreciates the importance and value of accreditation and corollary to that, AIHP respects the value and merit of the NCCA accreditation for independent certification programs in a standardized test environment. However, as the NCCA’s accreditation process does not include a review of course content but rather focuses on the assessment standards, it does not fulfill AIHP’s desire of having a third-party review of both curriculum and assessment.
Key Points
- As alluded to above, while AIHP believes that NCCA accreditation is valuable for independent certification programs, it does not fully address AHIP’s goal of having third-party review of both curriculum and assessment. More specifically, and to quote I.C.E.’s document, ‘Defining Features of Quality Certification and Assessment-Based Certificate Programs’ – “The certification program provider conducts the certification program independently of any educational/training programs. That is, the assessment is not linked to a specific class, course or other education/training program or to a specific provider of classes, courses, or programs.”[3]
- The NCCA does not accredit organizations, or course content – just the exams/assessments. Specifically, the exam questions cannot be directly linked with the course material. This is because the NCCA states that should exam questions be directly linked to content material, it would constitute giving preferential treatment to individuals who take ‘in-house’ preparatory program/classes/courses. As a result, NCCA accredited assessments are typically based on, and derived from independent sources such as independent subject matter experts versus a provider’s curriculum.
- AIHP invests significant time and financial resources to research, vet and hire the best possible content contributors for our certification(s). As such, AIHP views its contributors as subject matter experts. AIHP would not collaborate with anyone else other than who we believe to be top subject matter experts. Hence, AIHP believes that evaluation of our students should be based on our expertly curated content.
AIHP’s Position on Accreditation
It is AIHP’s position that ICE, as well as the NCCA are respected standards for professional certification programs and thus have merit. However, AIHP believes that a different accreditation model may better fit fitness certification courses that seek review of both the course content as well as the assessment. More specifically, NCCA’s standards make sense in a standardized testing environment. Let’s dissect this a bit more. When you take standardized tests like college entrance exams (ex: SAT, ACT), you are being tested on subject matter that looks to assess readiness for college such as skills related to reading, writing, mathematics and general reasoning. As such, no matter where you went to school, the goal is that the classes you took from kindergarten through high school will prepare you for the SAT/ACT. As you can see, the NCCA standards make sense in this standardized testing application.
However, as there is not a standardized test equivalent in the fitness industry, it is our position that NCCA accreditation is likely not the appropriate measure to assess educational/testing quality and credibility – primarily, due to their requirement that course content cannot be directly linked to the exam.
Proposed Solution
AIHP believes that third-party accreditation is an important aspect of ensuring that both course content as well as the testing process is above board. Hence, our proposed solution with respect to accreditation is quite simple – AIHP is currently researching accreditation organizations that evaluate and accredit both the course content, as well as the assessment.
Conclusion
From a perception standpoint, the NCCA accreditation has become the gold standard within the fitness education industry to adjudicate quality of fitness certifications. It has been our experience that most individuals that we have spoken to within the fitness industry do not know that the NCCA accreditation only pertains to the exam, not the company or the course content. Moreover, these individuals also do not know that the exam content must not be directly linked to certification course content. Hence, there is a general lack of understanding amongst fitness professionals and club operators with respect to the specifics of the NCCA accreditation process.
In closing, it is AIHP’s position on accreditation that in addition to assessing the exam, course content should also be assessed to ensure that it is held to the highest standard with respect to accuracy and applicability.
[1] https://www.iasonline.org/about-ias/what-is-accreditation/
[2] https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/higher-education-laws-and-policy/college-accreditation/overview-of-accreditation-united-states
[3] https://www.credentialingexcellence.org/Portals/0/Docs/Accreditation/Features%20Document.pdf