Development of a Formative and Summative Assessment System for AuD Education PurposeThis article provides an overview of a comprehensive assessment system that documents that students have obtained the skills and knowledge necessary to obtain a Doctor of Audiology (AuD) degree.MethodThe individual components of the assessment system; rationale for development of each assessment; and grading criteria, outcomes measures, faculty commentary, missteps, and ... Clinical Focus
Clinical Focus  |   June 01, 2013
Development of a Formative and Summative Assessment System for AuD Education
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Diana C. Emanuel
    Towson University, Towson, MD
  • Candace G. Robinson
    Towson University, Towson, MD
  • Peggy Korczak
    Towson University, Towson, MD
  • Correspondence to Diana C. Emanuel: demanuel@towson.edu
  • Editor: Larry Humes
    Editor: Larry Humes×
Article Information
Hearing Disorders / Professional Issues & Training / Clinical Focus
Clinical Focus   |   June 01, 2013
Development of a Formative and Summative Assessment System for AuD Education
American Journal of Audiology, June 2013, Vol. 22, 14-25. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2012/12-0037)
History: Received July 11, 2012 , Revised October 10, 2012 , Accepted October 23, 2012
 
American Journal of Audiology, June 2013, Vol. 22, 14-25. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2012/12-0037)
History: Received July 11, 2012; Revised October 10, 2012; Accepted October 23, 2012
Web of Science® Times Cited: 1

PurposeThis article provides an overview of a comprehensive assessment system that documents that students have obtained the skills and knowledge necessary to obtain a Doctor of Audiology (AuD) degree.

MethodThe individual components of the assessment system; rationale for development of each assessment; and grading criteria, outcomes measures, faculty commentary, missteps, and successes of the system are discussed.

ConclusionCarefully planned and dynamic assessments can be integrated successfully into the AuD students' program of study with generally reasonable expectations for faculty workload. It is crucial for program directors to continually assess the system used to document student learning and to make modifications based on formal and informal feedback from students, faculty, alumni, evidence-based clinical practice, and clinical preceptors.

Acknowledgments
Many individuals were involved in the development of various components of the assessment system at Towson University. The authors would like to thank Bette Stevens for her work on the AFSA, Nicole Kreisman and Mary Carson for their work on the FACS Ad Hoc Committee, and Sharon Glennen for initial development of the rubric used for the AWA.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Audiology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access