Page | 1 Guiding Principles for Program Evaluation and Student Assessment -
Section 4 of the 2016 CACREP Standards
CACREP Guiding Statement
®
Guiding Principles for Program Evaluation and Student Assessment -
Section 4 of the 2016 CACREP Standards
Section 4 requires counseling faculty to thoughtfully consider how they wish to collect data about their
program’s mission, objectives, curriculum, students, and student learning outcomes; how they analyze
the data; and how they use the data to make improvements in the overall program and individual
student learning. This Section is meant to provide an overall framework for program evaluation and
student assessment to be implemented in the context of the program’s mission and objectives. Rather
than being comprehensive or directive, Section 4 outlines minimum data that must be collected and
areas that must be reviewed. The process includes: 1) planning how to evaluate; 2) implementing the
plan, including what data to collect and how they will be reviewed and analyzed; 3) improving the
program using the gathered evidence; and 4) reporting the data and program changes to stakeholders.
Section 4 contains two distinct, yet interconnected components: Evaluation of the Program and
Assessment of Students. A third component, Evaluation of Faculty and Supervisors, is included in Section
4. The process of faculty and supervisor evaluation is required to be performed by the program but no
data is required to be reported in the Annual Report.
Evaluation of the Program
The faculty are expected to design a formal evaluation plan which includes the components outlined in
Standard 4.A. as they relate directly to the program objectives. Requirements for program objectives are
outlined in standard 2.B. Components of this evaluation plan include “(1) the data that will be collected,
(2) a procedure for how and when data will be collected, (3) a method for how data will be reviewed or
analyzed, and (4) an explanation for how data will be used for curriculum and program improvement.”
The Standards require that each of the data points outlined in 4.B be addressed. At a minimum, the
intent is that programs provide data related to “(1) aggregate student assessment data that address
student knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions; (2) demographic and other characteristics of
applicants, students, and graduates; and (3) data from systematic follow-up studies of graduates, site
supervisors, and employers of program graduates.”. Once data have been collected and analyzed, an
annual, formal report shall be generated, as outlined in Standard 4.D.
The data points should be connected with one or more of the program objectives. For example, if a
program objective is to “provide counselor education training for a diverse student body,” then it would
be expected that demographic and other characteristics of students would be used to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the program in achieving that objective. Many programs have objectives consistent
with student learning, such as: “Students will gain the knowledge and skills associated with professional
orientation and ethics in counseling.” Aggregate student learning data can be used to demonstrate
outcomes specific to each program objective. It is expected that data for at least some program
objectives be validated or cross-validated with data from follow up studies of graduates, site
supervisors, and employers of program graduates.
Page | 2 Guiding Principles for Program Evaluation and Student Assessment -
Section 4 of the 2016 CACREP Standards
It is also expected that faculty will use this data to make program improvements, as outlined in Standard
4.C, and will document these improvements in the program’s annual report required in Standard 4.D. At
least annually, faculty members will review the data collected, discuss it in relation to the overall
program objectives, and determine what, if any, changes need to be made to the program. This report
should include the results of the evaluation, subsequent program changes, and any other changes (such
as those required by licensing or certifying bodies). Program changes should be clearly articulated and
connected to outcomes of program evaluation where applicable. This report needs to be purposefully
made available on the program website and program stakeholders should be notified that the report is
available.
In addition to the annual report, a supplementary statistical report must be completed each year. This
report is outlined in Standard 4.E. and includes the following components: “(1) the number of graduates
for the past academic year, (2) pass rates on credentialing examinations, (3) completion rates, and (4)
job placement rates.” While this information can be included in the annual report, it should also be
posted separately on the program website in an easily accessible location.
Assessment of Students
The program’s plan for assessing students should be designed by the program faculty and include “(1)
identification of key assessment elements, (2) measurement of student data, and (3) review or analysis
of data”, as outlined in Standards 4.F. and 4.G. respectively. While this section of the Standards speaks
to the assessment of individual students, the same data and processes can be used in aggregate to meet
program evaluation requirements outlined under Standard 4.B.
Sampling is an acceptable way of conducting student assessment for program evaluation purposes.
While program curricula must address all standards in Section 2.F, the Standards allow programs to
develop key performance indicators that are based on a sampling or compilation of standards from each
of these eight core areas, the specialty area(s), and the doctoral core (Section 6.B) that they believe
represent a mix of important knowledge and skill measures at multiple points throughout the program.
These key performance indicators are often based on program objectives. Key performance indicators
might incorporate concepts or wording from specific curricular standards, or programs could develop
indicators that clearly reflect one or more standards. For example, to assess student learning in the
COUNSELING AND HELPING RELATIONSHIPS common core area, programs might choose to use Standard
2.F.5.g - “essential interviewing, counseling, and case conceptualization skills” as a performance
indicator, or they might create the following performance indicator: “establish and maintain an effective
counseling relationship” with the idea that the latter example reflects the content in multiple standards
in Section 2.F.5.
Assessment of student learning requires programs to identify a minimum of 9 key performance
indicators for students in entry-level program specializations: (1) at least one knowledge or skill for each
of the 8 core areas, and (2) at least one knowledge or skill for the specialty area. Doctoral programs
must identify at least one knowledge or skill for each of the 5 doctoral core areas.
Beyond the minimum outlined in the Standards, decisions regarding the number and type of indicators
are to be made by program faculty based on what they believe would best enable them to
comprehensively assess student learning in each area. The Standards do not dictate what proportion of
indicators must focus on knowledge versus skills. However, programs must include a combination of
knowledge and skill performance indicators in their assessment of students. For example, an entry-level
Clinical Mental Health Counseling program might decide to use key performance indicators to assess
Page | 3 Guiding Principles for Program Evaluation and Student Assessment -
Section 4 of the 2016 CACREP Standards
knowledge from six of the eight common core areas and the CMHC specialty standards, but assess skills
from the COUNSELING AND HELPING RELATIONSHIPS and GROUP COUNSELING AND GROUP WORK
common core areas. Assessment of both knowledge and skills in each core and specialty area is not
required, though program faculty may consider this good practice.
In addition to identifying a minimum of one knowledge or skill performance indicator in each core and
specialty area, programs must use “multiple measures” (at least two different types of assessment
methods) across “multiple points” (across at least two points in time for each area). The intent of using
multiple measures is so that programs can cross-validate student outcome data related to each area.
For example, a program might assess a key performance indicator for a skill in the COUNSELING AND
HELPING RELATIONSHIPS common core area by using a case conceptualization and a role play, allowing
faculty two different methods of assessing student skill.
Gathering assessment data at multiple points in time allows programs to monitor student learning over
time. To fulfill the “multiple points” in time requirement, programs should be able to identify relevant
points throughout a student’s program of studies where assessment applicable to each area would be
most beneficial. Programs might have different expectations for student outcomes early in the program
versus during their internships or at the end of their programs. They might also want to monitor specific
skill or knowledge development over time. For instance, regarding the GROUP COUNSELING AND
GROUP WORK common core area, programs might assess a knowledge indicator during a group
counseling course and then again at the end of the program as part of a comprehensive exam –
expecting to see advancement in knowledge over time.
Program approaches to student assessment will vary in sophistication, not only in the use of multiple
measures over multiple points in time, but in the number of key performance indicators used. For
example, suppose a program has identified a knowledge performance indicator for the PROFESSIONAL
COUNSELING ORIENTATION AND ETHICAL PRACTICE common core area. The program might choose to
incorporate two measures: (1) a multiple choice exam in an ethics course to assess early learning, and
(2) a portfolio entry demonstrating knowledge of ethics at the end of the program. This approach would
minimally meet the requirements for a key performance indicator in a core area being assessed “via
multiple measures and over multiple points in time.” Using another example, suppose a program has
identified 4 performance indicators for the PROFESSIONAL COUNSELING ORIENTATION AND ETHICAL
PRACTICE common core area, – 2 knowledge and 2 skills. To fulfill the “multiple methods” (or a
minimum of 2 methods) requirement, the program might choose to incorporate three measures: (1) a
multiple choice exam in the ethics course to assess both of the knowledge indicators, (2) a role play in
the counseling skills course where students demonstrate skills in applying ethical standards with a
suicidal client (one of the skills indicators), and (3) a site supervisor evaluation incorporating items
related to student skills in applying ethics with clients (addressing the final skills indicator). This
approach would be good practice for meeting the requirements for a key performance indicator in a
core area being assessed “via multiple measures and over multiple points in time.”
In addition to the requisite knowledge and skills, counseling students must have, or have the ability to
develop, the dispositions necessary for effectiveness as counselors. Section 4.G requires that “the
counselor education program faculty systematically assesses each student’s professional dispositions
throughout the program.” The assessment process includes the following: “(1) identification of key
dispositions (2) measurement of student dispositions over multiple points in time, and (3) review or
analysis of data.” Again, faculty are expected to define these dispositions, collect data at program-
identified points throughout each student’s program of studies, and then review and analyze the data
for each individual student to determine areas where remediation might be needed. For example,
Page | 4 Guiding Principles for Program Evaluation and Student Assessment -
Section 4 of the 2016 CACREP Standards
openness to feedback might be assessed for each student as part of the application process and again at
the completion of practicum. Programs must also review and analyze the data in the aggregate (across
all students) to identify possible admission or programmatic changes that may be needed. Results
arising from the aggregate analysis should be part of the program evaluation annual report, as required
in Standard 4.D.
Evaluation of Faculty and Supervisors
No substantive changes were made to the standards in this section. These standards were revised to
place greater emphasis on the evaluation of practicum and internship supervisors with the
understanding that specific requirements regarding the evaluation of faculty (Section 4.I-J) are likely to
be dictated by university policy and procedure.
Documentation and Evidence
There are many methods for documenting assessment processes and providing evidence of the
implementation of these processes; not every method is appropriate for every program. Below are
some suggested forms of documentation and evidence that may be helpful to programs.
Evaluation Plan
Standard 4.A. requires that programs provide a formal plan that documents their systematic approach
to evaluation in the program. As noted in Standard 4.B., program evaluation and student assessment are
part of this plan; and this plan becomes part of the annual report required in Standard 4.D. Likewise, it is
important that programs clearly connect their assessment and evaluation processes to program
objectives and student learning outcomes. Tables are often used to summarize key assessments and
their components, as outlined in Standard 4.A. Results should be linked to program improvements.
Curriculum Matrix
A curriculum matrix can be a useful tool for summarizing where each standard is covered in the
curriculum. For example, a program might have a matrix demonstrating where each common core area
and specialty standard is addressed in the curriculum. A similar format can be used to demonstrate
where and how key performance indicators are assessed across the curriculum. While not required,
curriculum matrices may be a good practice because they allow program faculty and reviewers to
quickly identify gaps in course delivery and assessment.
Syllabi
Standard 2.D. provides guidance on elements that should be included in each syllabus. These elements
include: (1) content areas, (2) knowledge and skill outcomes, (3) methods of instruction, (4) required
text(s) and/or reading(s), (5) student performance evaluation criteria and procedures, and (6) a disability
accommodation policy and procedure statement. Syllabi can articulate the relationship between course
objectives (knowledge and skill outcomes) and the associated learning activities. CACREP reviewers use
syllabi to verify that curriculum is taught. Because syllabi are required to include knowledge and skill
outcomes, these may be linked to key performance indicators that document student assessment. The
link to aggregate student assessment and program evaluation does not need to be included in each
course syllabus, but it must be communicated to CACREP as part of the self-study. Though not required,
many programs use tables to articulate the relationships between course objectives, learning activities,
and assessment of learning in self-study materials that are submitted.
Page | 5 Guiding Principles for Program Evaluation and Student Assessment -
Section 4 of the 2016 CACREP Standards
Assessment Tools
Many programs use copies of their assessment tools as documentation of their evaluation processes.
For example, for program evaluation, copies of graduate, employer, and site supervisor surveys can be
helpful. For student assessments, copies of assignment descriptions, sample exams, and sample student
review forms can be helpful.
Assessment Data
Many programs use assessment data as evidence that assessment processes have been implemented.
For example, for program evaluation, copies of aggregate graduate, employer, and site supervisor
survey data can be utilized. For student assessment, it is important that programs redact any personally
identifying information from any materials submitted for review. When providing evidence to support
program improvement based on aggregate student assessment data, many programs include copies of
meeting or retreat minutes where changes were implemented.
Relationships among Standards
It may be helpful to integrate related standards outside of Section 4 when developing a plan for program
evaluation and student assessment. With planning and thoughtful consideration, it is possible to meet
multiple standards using a single process. For example, a program might use the assessment of program
applicants outlined in Standard I.L. as part of their assessment of student dispositions and other
characteristics, as outlined in Standard 4.G. Each program is unique and will identify different sets of
related standards, depending on the needs and design of the program. The remainder of this section
includes commonly related standards. However, this list is not all-inclusive.
Mission and Objectives
Program objectives (as outlined in Standards 2.A. and 2.B.) are the foundation of program evaluation
and are likely to influence the development of key performance indicators and student assessments.
Depending on the nature of a program’s objectives, different assessments may play a greater role in
program evaluation than others. For example, a program whose objectives are tied heavily to student
learning outcomes may find that their student assessment processes are central to their program
assessment, while data on student demographics may be appear to be less relevant. Likewise, a
program whose objectives are tied to graduation rates or diversity might find data on student
demographics and characteristics critical to their program evaluation process. Regardless of the
perceived relevance, all elements outlined in Standard 4.B. should be addressed in the program
evaluation plan.
2.A. The counselor education program has a publicly available mission statement and program
objectives.
2.B. The program objectives (1) reflect current knowledge and projected needs concerning
counseling practice in a multicultural and pluralistic society; (2) reflect input from all persons
involved in the conduct of the program, including program faculty, current and former students,
and personnel in cooperating agencies; (3) address student learning; and (4) are written so they
can be evaluated.
Page | 6 Guiding Principles for Program Evaluation and Student Assessment -
Section 4 of the 2016 CACREP Standards
Admissions and Measurement of Dispositions
Standards 4.B. and 4.G. speak to assessment of professional dispositions. Programs may find it helpful or
efficient to include their admissions process as part of the “multiple measures over multiple points in
time” requirement for student assessment of professional dispositions.
1.L. Entry-level admission decision recommendations are made by the academic unit’s selection
committee and include consideration of each applicant’s (1) relevance of career goals, (2)
aptitude for graduate level study, (3) potential success in forming effective counseling
relationships, and (4) respect for cultural differences
6.A.3.Doctoral program admission criteria include (a) academic aptitude for doctoral-level study,
(b) previous professional experience, (c) fitness for the profession, including self-awareness and
emotional stability, (d) oral and written communication skills, (e) cultural sensitivity and
awareness, and (f) potential for scholarship, professional leadership, and advocacy.
Student Assessment for Retention/Remediation Purposes
As indicated in standard 4.H., program faculty should have “a systematic process in place for the use of
individual student assessment data in relation to retention, remediation, and dismissal.” It may be
helpful for programs to think simultaneously about the structure of their student retention,
remediation, and dismissal policies and their student assessment processes when designing these
systems.
1.O. Counselor education programs have and follow a policy for student retention, remediation,
and dismissal from the program consistent with institutional due process policies and
professional ethical codes and standards of practice.
Curriculum and Assessment
The Entry-Level Specialty Standards (Sections 5.A.-G) and the Doctoral Level Core Curriculum (Section
6.B) each require that programs must document where each of the lettered standards is covered in the
curriculum. In addition, Standard 2.D. requires that programs include content areas, as well as
knowledge and skill outcomes in their syllabi. Curriculum Matrices can also help document the
relationship between content areas and specific aspects of the curriculum.
As indicated earlier in this document, course syllabi can be powerful tools for demonstrating compliance
with the student assessment requirements found in Standard 4.F. Programs may also want to consider
ways of integrating the formative and summative evaluations of student’s counseling performance into
their overall student and/or program assessment plan.
2.D. Syllabi are available for review by all enrolled or prospective students, are distributed at the
beginning of each curricular experience, and include (1) content areas, (2) knowledge and skill
outcomes, (3) methods of instruction, (4) required text(s) and/or reading(s), (5) student
performance evaluation criteria and procedures, and (6) a disability accommodation policy and
procedure statement.
3.C. Formative and summative evaluations of the student’s counseling performance and ability
to integrate and apply knowledge are conducted as part of the student’s practicum and
internship.
Page | 7 Guiding Principles for Program Evaluation and Student Assessment -
Section 4 of the 2016 CACREP Standards
Glossary Terms
The following terms can also be found in the CACREP glossary:
Glossary term
1st time listed
Definition
Common Core Areas
II.F
eight areas of curricular experience required by CACREP
to prepare all counselors: (1) professional counseling
orientation and ethical practice, (2) social and cultural
diversity, (3) human growth and development, (4) career
development, (5) counseling and helping relationships,
(6) group counseling and group work, (7) assessment and
testing, and (8) research and program evaluation. The
common core areas represent knowledge areas that are
fundamental to the counseling profession.
Empirically-based plan
IV.A
systematic approach to program evaluation based a
regular review of measurable outcomes and goals
Evaluation
II.D
the collection and interpretation of information to make
judgments about individuals, programs, or processes
that lead to decisions and future actions (from NCDA
Career Counselor Assessment and Evaluation
Competencies, 2010)
Evidence-based
Counseling Practice
Doc II.1.d
interventions and other practices whose effectiveness is
documented by research.
Formative and
Summative Evaluations
III.C
Formative evaluation examines the development of
professional competencies with a focus on identifying
strengths and deficiencies and corresponding learning
interventions. Summative evaluation focuses on
outcome and is used to assess whether desired learning
goals are achieved consistent with a professional
standard.
Key Performance
Indicators
4.F
Student learning outcomes that are connected to the
required curriculum and that program faculty have
chosen to represent student knowledge and skills
related to program objectives
Multiple Points
IV.F
collected at two or more points in time throughout
students' program of study
Professional Dispositions
IV.G
the commitments, characteristics, values, beliefs,
interpersonal functioning, and behaviors that influence
the counselor's professional growth and interactions
clients and colleagues
Student Learning
II.B; III.T
measurable acquisition of knowledge or skills
Page | 8 Guiding Principles for Program Evaluation and Student Assessment -
Section 4 of the 2016 CACREP Standards
Systematic
I.K
a regular, ongoing, and comprehensive.
