Unit: Communication Sciences & Disorders
Program: Communication Sciences & Disorders (MS)
Degree: Master's
Date: Fri Oct 11, 2013 - 10:05:39 pm

1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.

We revised our program SLOs in 2013 and the following SLOs have been used since the summer of 2013.

  1. Students will be able to explain normal and abnormal human communication and swallowing processes across the life span and apply that knowledge in clinical practice. (IV-B, V-B)
  2. Students will be able to describe different types of communication and swallowing disorders and differences across the life span and apply that knowledge in clinical practice. (IV-C, V-B)
  3. Students will be able to communicate current principles and methods of prevention, assessment, and intervention for people with communication and swallowing disorders and differences and apply that knowledge in clinical practice. (IV-D, V-B)
  4. Students will be able to conduct themselves in accordance with professional ethics, including the current ASHA Code of Ethics. (IV-E)
  5. Students will understand evidence-based practice: locate credible and reliable research, critically evaluate research, and relate research findings to clinical practice. (IV-F)
  6. Students will be able to describe contemporary professional issues. (IV-G)
  7. Students will be able to explain major policies and procedures relevant to professional practice, including certifications, licensure, and regulations. (IV-H)
  8. Students will be able to effectively communicate, including written and oral or other forms. (V-A)
  9. Students will be able to evaluate and diagnose, select and implement appropriate interventions, effectively interact with clients/patients and relevant others, and provide counseling and education in regards to communication and swallowing disorders and differences. (V-B)

2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.

Department Website URL: http://blog.hawaii.edu/csd/files/2013/09/CSD-program-outcomes-2013-04-02-only-outcomes.pdf
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://blog.hawaii.edu/csd/files/2011/08/Handbook-for-Graduate-Students.pdf
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: NA

3) Select one option:

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2013:

4) For your program, the percentage of courses that have course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is as follows. Please update as needed.


5) Did your program engage in any program assessment activities between June 1, 2012 and September 30, 2013? (e.g., establishing/revising outcomes, aligning the curriculum to outcomes, collecting evidence, interpreting evidence, using results, revising the assessment plan, creating surveys or tests, etc.)

No (skip to question 14)

6) For the period June 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.

Assessment Goal 1: Improve the didactic education to meet the needs of future employers

Assessment Goal 2: Increase our student's clinical experience and clinic clock hours regarding evaluation and treatment at the on-campus clinic (University of Hawai'i Speech and Hearing Clinic)

Assessment Goal 3: Improve student outcomes (program completion rates, PRAXIS exam pass rates, and employment rates for the past three academic years) to meet the program accreditation body’s established threshold of 80% three-year average

7) State the type(s) of evidence gathered to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #6.

Evidence for Goal 1: Data from student, alumni, and employment surveys, internal and external curriculum reviews, internal and external curriculum reviews

Evidence for Goal 2: Our students' clinical clock hours in 2012 and 2013, data from student, alumni, and employer surveys

Evidence for Goal 3: Program completion date, PRAXIS examination scores, employment status

8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

All surveys were conducted by distributing a paper survey form to targeted population and compiled by faculty and staff.  The followings are sampling numbers:

Alumni survey: n=5; Student survey: n=13; Employee survey: n=2

Internal curriculum reviews were performed by all five faculty members and external reviews were conducted by five local speech-language pathologists and one audiologist.

9) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)

Course instructor(s)
Faculty committee
Ad hoc faculty group
Department chairperson
Persons or organization outside the university
Faculty advisor
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
Other: Staff

10) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)

Used a rubric or scoring guide
Scored exams/tests/quizzes
Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used)
Compiled survey results
Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, open-ended response data
External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., external organization administered and scored the nursing licensing exam)

11) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #6:
Summarize the actual results.

Assessment Goal 1: Employer Survey data in the spring of 2013 indicated that there was a need for our graduates to have more training in writing reports by adequately interpreting results and more exposure to the assessment report template used in the Department of Education.  In addition, Alumni Survey data demonstrated agreement in that our alumni would have felt better prepared for the school setting given more training in assessments and report/goal writing. Moreover, the alumni indicated that they would have benefited from more exposure to the specific documentation forms required in the school setting (e.g., IEP and assessment report style tying goals to the common core standards). Internal and external curriculum reviews identified areas of improvement in our curriculum.

Assessment Goal 2: Employer Survey data in the spring of 2013 indicated that our graduates need more exposure to goal writing in assessment and less frequently used evaluation tools. It was also found that our graduate students in 2012 had insufficient speech and language evaluation clock hours and experience and earned less adult treatment clock hours than child treatment hours at the department's on-campus clinic.

Assessment Goal 3: Both PRAXIS examination pass rate (100%) and employment rate (91%) met the 80% three-year average threshold.  Our program completion rate within 2 years (expected graduation timeframe) increased to 100 % in the 2012-2013 academic year compared to 86% in the 2011-2012 academic year because of curriculum changes the program implemented in 2011.  However, due to low completion rate of 50% in the 2010-2011 academic year, our average three-year program completion rate within 2 years was 79% which did not meet the established threshold.

12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.

Goal 1: In order to improve didactic education to meet the expectation of future employers, the program revised CSD710B: Special Topics in SLP for the summer of 2013 to cover the documentation, mandates, processes and procedures, and Individualized Education Plan (IEP) process required in schools. 

Goal 2: In order to increase our students' clinical experience and clinic clock hours regarding evaluation and treatment at the on-campus clinic, we implemented rotating evaluation slots and allocated Friday for diagnostics evaluation.  The program established relation with a rehabilitation hospital to increase referrals for adult patients.  As a result, the average number of evaluation hours per student increased from 2.90 hours (Summer session 2012) to 11.15 hours (Summer session 2013).  Following the admission of more clients with adult neurogenic disorders, the average number of adult treatment hours nearly doubled during the three semesters of student’s internship from 21.64 (for the 2011-2013 cohort) to 39.45 hours (for the 2012-2014 cohort). The average number of child treatment hours also increased from 74.1 (for the 2011-2013 cohort) to 105.1 (for the 2012-2014 cohort) as the clinic saw an overall increase in clients in the new location.

Goal 3: To improve student outcomes, especially program completion rate, the program continues operating under previous program changes to maintain 100% program completion rate for the 2013-2014 academic year.  This will enable the program to meet the accreditation body's established threshold.

13) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries?
This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, program aspects and so on.


14) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.
Or, if the program did engage in assessment activities, please add any other important information here.