Heuristic Table 1
Guidelines for Quality Principle I

1.0 FACTORS ABOVE STANDARD BELOW STANDARD

Evidence of student learning:     Completeness All components are analyzed(1.1 - 1.3) Some components missing in the analysis Consistency Evidence is consistent with the claim that each component was learned Evidence is inconsistent with the claim that each component was learned Sufficiency Preponderance of evidence is of sufficient magnitude Preponderance of evidence is of insufficient magnitude Precision Clean or qualified audit opinion Adverse or disclaimer audit opinion

Heuristic Table 2
Guidelines forQuality Principle II

2.0 FACTORS ABOVE STANDARD BELOW STANDARD

2.1 Rationale     1. Completeness Credible links between the assessments and the goals, claims, and the program requirements Incomplete coverage of the links between the assessments and goals, claims, and program requirements Strength Coherence among assessments, goals, claims, and program requirements Disconnections among assessments, goals, claims, and program requirements Grounded in scholarship Accurate & balanced interpretation of thescholarly literature Misinterpreted literature Faculty support Text is clear and precise Text is tautological, vague, or ambiguous

2.2 Valid assessment system     Design (sampling, validity, threats, etc.) Sound evaluation design Weak design (inadequate sampling, presence of threats to validity, etc.) Multiple measures Measures mostly consistent with each other Measures mostly inconsistent with each other Sufficiency Preponderance of reliability and validity measures of sufficient magnitude Preponderance of reliability and validity measures of insufficient magnitude Precision Clean or qualified audit opinion Adverse or disclaimer audit opinion

Heuristic Table 3
Guidelines for Quality Principle III

3.0 FACTORS ABOVE STANDARD BELOW STANDARD

3.1 Decision making   Basis for past decisions Some program decisions informed by evidence Program decisions are episodic, ad hoc, only by consensus, or fiat Basis for future decisions QCS plan to base decisions for program improvement on evidence where possible No plan for relying on-evidence in program improvement decisions Precision Text is clear and precise Text is tautological, vague, or ambiguous

3.2 Quality Control System     Completeness System attends to all components (4.1 – 4.7) System fails to attend all components (4.1 – 4.7) Problem-finding Internal Audit identifies areas in the QCS or program for improvement Internal Audit fails to identify problems in the QCS or in the program Links to student learning Plan to investigate the links between program capacity and student learning No plan to investigate the links between program capacity and student learning Quality improvement Internal audit provides evidence that each component is monitored adequately Internal audit reveals a preponderance of components are not monitored adequately Precision Clean or qualified audit opinion Adverse or disclaimer audit opinion

Heuristic Table 4
Guidelines for Capacity

4.0 FACTORS ABOVE STANDARD BELOW STANDARD

Completeness All subcomponents of capacity (4.1 – 4.7) are addressed Some subcomponents of capacity (4.1 – 4.7) are not addressed in the Inquiry Brief Commitment Parity on the preponderance of components (4.1 – 4.7) Lack of parity on the preponderance of components (4.1 – 4.7) Sufficiency Sufficient evidence for the preponderance of subcomponents Insufficient evidence for the preponderance of subcomponents Precision Clean or qualified audit opinion Adverse or disclaimer audit opinion

* In their audit report, the auditors render the judgment of whether or not the institution is committed to the program seeking ac-creditation. In accepting the report, the panel does not make a separate decision about commitment.

Heuristic Table 5
Heuristics for the Accreditation Decision

Heuristic Table 6
The influence of the capacity standards for program quality in the final accreditation recommendation and decision

Accreditition decision in heuristic table 5	Capacity for quality (4.0)*	Accreditation decision
Accredit	Below standard	Provisionally accredit
Provisionally accredit	Below standard	Deny
Preaccredit or New program accredit	Below standard (Above on commitment)	Preaccredit (With stipulation)
Preaccredit/New program accredit	Below Standard (Below on commitment)	Deny

* If capacity is above standard there is no change in the decision portrayed in Table 5.