Accreditation Recommendations and Decisions:

A recommendation to accredit is made when, guided by the factors in Table 6, the Panel finds that

• The Inquiry Brief, coupled with the auditors' findings, indicates that the program faculty's claims about the quality principles and capacity standards are fully warranted and justified, or that support for the claims is at least consistent with evidence derived from contemporary research practices.

A recommendation to grant provisional accreditation is made when, guided by the factors in Table 6, the Panel finds that

• The Inquiry Brief, coupled with the auditors' findings, indicates that the program faculty's claims about the core aspects of the quality principles are warranted and justified.

Provisional accreditation indicates, on the strength of the results, that the program faculty can remedy the weaknesses in the other sections of the Inquiry Brief and become fully accredited within three years.

A recommendation to grant pre-accreditation status is made when, guided by the factors in Table 6, the Panel finds that

• The Inquiry Brief, coupled with the auditors' findings, fails to support the program faculty's core claims, but there is reason to believe that additional evidence and/or analysis of existing data would indicate the faculty's claims about the quality principles were warranted.

A recommendation for new program accreditation status is made when, guided by the factors in Table 6, the Panel finds that

• The Inquiry Brief Proposal, coupled with the auditors' findings, indicates that there is evidence of a sound rationale, quality control system, institutional commitment to program quality, and that the evidence of Quality Principle I is forthcoming.

Pre-accreditation and new program status indicate that the program, on the strength of several positive indicators, would be able to provide the evidence required for accreditation within a five-year period.

A recommendation to deny accreditation is made when, guided by the factors in Table 6, the Panel finds that

• The Inquiry Brief, coupled with the auditors' findings, fails to support the program faculty's claims and there is little likelihood that additional evidence and analysis would indicate the faculty's claims about the quality principles could be warranted.

A denied decision indicates that the evidence for a quality control system is too weak and that the program faculty has not been able to react productively to the weaknesses uncovered elsewhere in the Inquiry Brief. Accreditation must be denied in this case and awaits the formulation of a remedy for the weaknesses.