Glossary of Key Terms in Quality Assurance and Accreditation
(Updated 5/8/01)

Introduction
This glossary is a work in progress. It is designed to strengthen communication across national boundaries through demonstrating similarities and differences in key quality assurance and accreditation terminology used in different parts of the world. Acknowledging that this language involves considerable ambiguity of meaning, CHEA, working with international colleagues, seeks to enhance our shared understanding of terms regularly employed in quality review.
    This process involves providing information about different ways in which we use terms. Where these differences in meaning are identified with specific countries or regions in the glossary, we have noted that link (e.g., United States, South Africa, Europe). We have tried to identify different terms that refer to relatively similar processes. For example, the process of external recognition of institutional quality results in "accredited institutions" (U.S.) and "recognized bodies" (U.K.). Terms are cross-referenced by hyperlink to facilitate movement back and forth between them. While we have tried to indicate different meanings in different contexts, that is not always possible (or known).
    We acknowledge that this effort, to date, draws most heavily from the U.S. context. We encourage you to provide CHEA with additional terms for inclusion and, equally important, information about terms already in the glossary but for which you have an alternative definition. You may do this by contacting Fred M. Hayward, consultant to CHEA, at Fred_Hayward@ace.nche.edu.

Accreditation of Prior Learning: (U.K.) A process by which individuals can claim and gain credit toward qualifications based on their prior learning and sometimes experience (often called experiential learning). Credit to be given where there is evidence that the experience or learning has resulted in the student achieving the appropriate and clearly expressed learning outcomes.

Action: (U.S.) A judgment by an accrediting organization regarding accreditation for new institutions and programs or review of accreditation for ongoing institutions and programs. Includes, for example, denial of accreditation, probation, and warning. (See also adverse action.)

Adverse Action: Denial of eligibility or recognition of a higher education institution by an accrediting or quality assurance organization, or (U.S.) of an accrediting organization, as determined by the national, regional, or specialized accreditation body.

Assessment: A diagnostic form of quality review and evaluation of teaching, learning, and programs based on a detailed examination of curricula, structure, and effectiveness of the institution, its internal review, and quality control mechanisms.

Audit: A process of review of an institution or program to determine if its curriculum, staff, and infrastructure meet its stated aims and objectives. An audit focuses on accountability of institutions and programs. (In the U.K., an audit is an institutional process. The term "audit" is scheduled to be replaced in 2002 by "institutional review" as part of a new academic review process.)

Audit Report: (U.K.) The document prepared following a quality assessment peer review team site visit. The report generally focuses on institutional quality, academic standards, learning infrastructure, and staffing. In Europe, the document is more likely to be called an "evaluation report" or "assessment report."

Certification: Acknowledgement that quality standards required for approval have been achieved. Usually accords privileges. (See also licensure.)

Criteria: Standards for accreditation or certification of an institution or program. These involve expectations about quality, effectiveness, financial viability, compliance with national (U.S.: state and federal) rules and regulations, outcomes, and sustainability (see standards). In the U.K., "criteria" refers to standards for degree-awarding powers and the title "university."

Institutional Licensure: (U.S.) State government approval to conduct business as an educational institution. Licensing is not equated to accreditation and does not necessarily require demonstration of quality or ability to meet performance standards.

Licensure: Refers to approval of an individual to practice a profession once minimal requirements are met. Licensure usually is obtained through examination or graduation from an accredited institution. In some countries, a period of practical experience also may be required. (See also certification, registration.)

National Accreditors: (U.S.) Organizations that accredit public and private degree-granting, nonprofit, and for-profit institutions. They also frequently accredit single-purpose institutions, including distance learning colleges and universities, private career institutions and faith-based colleges and universities. (See regional accreditors; see also specialized and professional accreditors.)

Peer Review: External review and evaluation of the quality and effectiveness of an institution's academic programs, staffing, and structure, carried out by a team of external evaluators who are specialists in the fields reviewed and knowledgeable about higher education in general. Reviews may be based on standards set by the accrediting organizations or on quality standards set more broadly.

Performance Indicators: Representations (usually numeric) of the state of, or outcome from, an education organization, its programs, or processes. Sometimes called "management indicators." Regarded as a set of tangible measures designed to provide public accountability. Often includes admission and graduate data, research records, employment of graduates, cost per student, student/staff ratios, staff workloads, student relevance, class size, laboratory and other equipment, equity, libraries, information technology, and other learning resources. Should be subject to informed interpretation and judgment.

Professional Accreditors: (See specialized accreditors.)

Quality: Refers to "fitness for purpose"—meeting or conforming to generally accepted standards as defined by an accrediting or quality assurance body. (See also criteria, subject benchmark.)

Quality Assessment: A diagnostic review and evaluation of teaching, learning, and outcomes based on a detailed examination of curricula, structure, and effectiveness of the institution or program. Designed to determine if the institution or program meets generally accepted standards of excellence.

Quality Assurance: Planned and systematic review process of an institution or program to determine that acceptable standards of education, scholarship, and infrastructure are being maintained and enhanced. Usually includes expectations that mechanisms of quality control are in place and effective. Also (U.K.), the means through which an institution confirms that the conditions are in place for students to achieve the standards set by the institution or other awarding body.

Quality Audit: A test of an institution's quality assurance and control system through a self-evaluation and external review of its programs, staff, and infrastructure. Designed to provide an assessment of an institution's system of accountability, internal review mechanisms, and effectiveness with an external body confirming that the institution's quality assurance process complies with accepted standards.

Quality Improvement: The expectation that an institution will have in place a plan to monitor and improve the quality of its programs. In most cases, quality assurance and accrediting agencies require that established procedures ensure that this is an ongoing process.

Recognition: (U.S.) Acknowledgment that an accrediting organization meets or surpasses standards set by the entity conducting the recognition review.

Recognized Bodies: (U.K.) A list of universities and other institutions with power to award degrees. (See http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/recognisedukdegrees/index.cfm?fuseaction=institutes.list&InstituteCategoryID=1.)

Reciprocity: A system in which accrediting bodies acknowledge each other's accreditation or certification decisions, even though the criteria may not be identical. Recognition is based on the assumption of equivalence of standards and quality.

Regional Accreditors: (U.S.) Accredit public and private, nonprofit and for-profit, two- and four-year institutions in a specific geographic area. This is a comprehensive review of all institutional functions. (See also national accreditors as well as specialized and professional accreditors.)

Registration: (South Africa) (See also licensure.)

Self-study: The review and evaluation of the quality and effectiveness of an institution's own academic programs, staffing, and structure, based on standards set by an outside quality assurance body, carried out by the institution itself. Self-studies usually are undertaken in preparation for a quality assurance site visit by an outside team of specialists. Results in a self-study report.

Site Visit: Evaluation by a team of peer reviewers who examine the institution's self-study; interview faculty, students, and staff; and examine the structure and effectiveness of the institution and its academic programs. Usually results in an evaluation. Normally part of the accreditation process, but may be initiated by the institution itself. (See also peer review.)

Specialized and Professional Accreditors: (U.S.) Accredit specific programs or schools, such as law schools, medical schools, engineering schools, and health profession programs. (See also national accreditors and regional accreditors.) (U.K.) Professional and statutory bodies that approve or recognize specific programs (e.g., law, medicine, engineering, health professions, architecture) in the context of the requirements for professional qualification. Some such organizations have a prescribed statutory responsibility to approve or recognize programs and/or determine the academic standards and professional and vocational components of such programs.

Standards: The level of requirements and conditions that must be met by institutions or programs to be accredited or certified by a quality assurance or accrediting agency. These conditions involve expectations about quality, attainment, effectiveness, financial viability, outcomes, and sustainability. (See also criteria, quality, and subject benchmark.)

Substantial Equivalency: (U.S.) Certification of a non-U.S. program based on a finding that it is in all essential respects the equivalent of similar programs in the United States and meets accepted quality standards. Usually operative in situations in which reciprocity agreements are not in place.

Subject Benchmark: (U.K.) Provides a reference point against which outcomes can be measured. Subject benchmark statements provide a means for the academic community to describe the nature and characteristics of programs in a specific subject. They also represent general expectations about the standards for the award of qualifications at a given level and articulate the attributes and capabilities that those possessing such qualifications should be able to demonstrate. (See also standards, quality.)

Team Report: (U.S.) The report of the evaluation resulting from a site visit by assessors of a particular institution or program. Results in an accreditation or quality assurance recommendation or denial (an adverse action).

Third-Party Comment: (U.S.) Recognition statement of a party (other than the accreditor and the applicant) seeking to address an applicant's efforts to meet an accrediting organization's recognition standards.

Validation: Independent review of a self-assessment process by an outside quality assurance structure. Validation usually applies at the program level. (U.K.) The process by which an institution with degree-awarding powers judges that a program developed and delivered by another institution or organization is of an appropriate quality and standard to offer its program.

This effort has benefited especially from the work of: Carolyn Campbell, Judith Eaton, Sami Kanaan, Richard W. Lewis, Mala Singh, and Barbara Turlington. They are not responsible for the final product.

Prepared by Fred M. Hayward
Executive Vice President
Council for Higher Education Accreditation