CONTROL INTERNO

Very Satisfied Mostly Satisfied Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied Not At All Satisfied

Figure IV-E-2 Sample from 2014 Alumni Survey Respondents: Overall Satisfaction Rating

In summary, our graduates are not only satisfied with their program but have shown successful achievements following graduation by securing employments, receiving professional honors, and by publishing and presenting their scholarship. The program is achieving its outcomes as evidenced by the student and alumni achievements.

IV-F. Faculty outcomes, individually and in the aggregate, demonstrate program effectiveness.

Elaboration: The program demonstrates achievement of expected faculty outcomes. Expected faculty outcomes:

 are identified for the faculty as a group;

 incorporate expected levels of achievement;

 reflect expectations of faculty in their roles and evaluation of faculty performance;

 are consistent with and contribute to achievement of the program’s mission and goals; and

 are congruent with institution and program expectations.

Actual faculty outcomes are presented in the aggregate for the faculty as a group, analyzed, and compared to expected outcomes.

Program Response:

Consistent with the tripartite mission of the University and the College of Nursing, faculty outcomes are measured in the areas of teaching/learning, research/scholarship, and service (including

practice) and demonstrate program effectiveness. All tenured/tenure track and clinical faculty who teach in the DNP program are expected to be actively contributing within each area. Since practice is an area to which clinical faculty’s efforts may be assigned, workloads and expectations are

negotiated individually by the faculty and their division director. The College of Nursing Criteria for Promotion and Tenure for Tenure Track faculty (Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor), College of Nursing Criteria for reappointment and Promotion of Clinical Track Faculty (Clinical

1 Not at all 0%

2 0% 3

0% 4 Moderately 0%

14% 5

14% 6

7 Extremely 72%

Student Response: Overall Satisfaction with your DNP Degree Regarding your experience at this Nursing school, to what degree did your Nursing

school fulfill your expectations?

1 Not at all 2

3

4 Moderately 5

6

7 Extremely

Instructor, Clinical Assistant Professor, Clinical Associate Professor, Clinical Professor) can be found in Appendix IV-F-1. As part of the annual review procedures, all faculty complete an annual report.

De-identified examples of completed annual reports can be found in the resource room.

Annual reports are submitted to Faculty Advisory Committee for the Division through the designated administrative assistant in the division in which the faculty is a member. Two peer reviewers of equal or higher rank are selected from the Division Faculty Advisory Committee and review the annual report and TCE results. TCE results are part of the performance review and so de-identified sample TCEs of core course can be found in the resource room. Each reviewer examines the

submitted materials and assigns scores from 1-5 (1=Unsatisfactory; 2=Needs Improvement;

3=Satisfactory; 4=Above Satisfactory; 5=exceptional) on teaching, scholarship, and service. Each of these categories is weighted depending upon the faculty’s workload assignment. In some cases, a faculty member may have no assignment related to all categories. If consensus is reached between the primary and secondary reviewer, the primary reviewer presents an oral and written report to the committee with recommendations and supporting data. In the event of a discrepancy between the primary and secondary reviewer, the chair of the appropriate subcommittee will appoint a third reviewer. Following presentation of the data, the primary reviewer completes the summary of the annual review form (see Appendix IV-F-2) which is signed by the appropriate subcommittee chair and forwarded to the appropriate Division Director. The Division Director reviews the annual report and summary provided by the subcommittee chair and writes a formal evaluation. Results of this

evaluation process are shared with the faculty member at a formal evaluation appointment with their Division Director.

This annual review process is based upon the appropriate criteria and expectations for each faculty member providing a method for quantifying faculty achievements and aggregating data. It is expected that 95% of faculty will achieve a rating of satisfactory (3) or higher on teaching, scholarship, and service (including practice). Over the past five years, 98% have met this expectation. Summative data on faculty achievements in teaching, scholarship and service are detailed in Table IV-F-1 and IV-F-2.

As shown in Table IV-F, the number of publications per year by faculty varies from 97 to 116 total each year.

Table IV-F Aggregate number of publications produced by CON Faculty by Years 2010-2013

Table IV F-2 shows the grants initially funded since 2010. Both tables document faculty achievements in research/scholarship.

Table IV-F-2 Aggregate number of funding awards/grants achieved by CON Faculty 2010-2014

Table IV-F-3 documents the number of award/honors and presentations by our faculty. During the years 2010 to 2013, our faculty presented between 121-222 presentations at local, regional, national and international meetings. Our faculty has been honored with awards at the College, University, Regional, National and International levels for their teaching, mentorship, research/scholarship, and service/practice. This table documents the stellar achievements of our faculty.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

2010 2011 2012 2013

77 72 71

82

12 8 12 16

27

18 14 11

Peer Reviewed Manuscripts Invited Manuscripts Book Chapter

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

2

3

6 3

1

Other Funding Instruction Research Training Research

Table IV-F-3 Aggregate number of awards/honors and presentations achieved by CON faculty 2010-2013

As shown in Table IV-F-4, the majority of faculty do achieve >3 (satisfactory) for the

teaching/learning mission of the College. In all years, scores below satisfactory were less than or equal to 5% indicating we were able to meet our benchmark for faculty achievements in teaching (at least 95% scoring 3 or higher).

Table IV-F-4 Summary of Faculty Annual Review Scores: Teaching/Learning

As shown in Table IV-F-5, 95% of faculty in year 2011 to 99% of faculty in year 2013 scored 3 or higher in achievements in research/scholarship. For all years, one-third of our faculty scored in the

Exceptional range. Clearly, our faculty meets the benchmark for research/scholarship.

0 50 100 150 200 250 2010-2013 Summary of Faculty Annual

Review Scores: Teaching/Learning Mission

Percentage of Faculty YE

AR

Table IV-F-5 Summary of Faculty Annual Review Scores: Research/Scholarship Mission

Table IV-F-6 documents annual review scores for the practice/service mission for the college. The majority of faculty (98%) across the four years of evidence met the benchmark of a score of 3 (satisfactory) or higher. Many of our faculty provides service to the professional through their work with such groups as the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners and National Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculty.

Table IV-F-6 Summary of Faculty Annual Review Scores: Practice/Service Mission

Faculty achievement data are reviewed by Division Directors, and the Associate Deans, as well as the Dean. Benchmarks are that 95% of faculty obtain a 3(satisfactory) or above on teaching/learning, research/scholarship, or service/practice. Data from the Annual Review Summary Sheet serve as the

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

2010-2013 Summary of Faculty Annual Review Scores:

Research/Scholarship Mission

2010-2013 Summary of Faculty Annual Review Scores: Practice/Service Mission

basis for merit pay assignment, should merit monies be available. Decisions about merit pay are made by the Dean of the College in collaboration with the Division Directors. Should a faculty

member NOT meet the goal of satisfactory (3) or higher on teaching, scholarship, or service, a plan is made by the faculty member with his/her Division Director to improve the deficient score with the next academic year. Should the deficiency not be corrected, the Division Director in conjunction with the Dean has grounds for disciplinary action and even the option to not renew a contract.

Faculty who do not meet expected outcomes in teaching have a variety of resources available. For example, in the College we typically assign a faculty mentor when the faculty first is hired to assist with the transition to a faculty role. It typically is the program coordinator or volunteer from the program in which the faculty is assigned to teach. Other resources include the faculty development offerings through the College and University. At the University level, there are courses in item writing, handling difficult students, or strategies to facilitate learning. The CON will also pay for faculty to attend workshops on teaching strategies (e.g., item writing course offered through

National Council of State Boards of Nursing, workshops on developing effective simulations). Faculty resources to bolster achievements in research/scholarship include the multiple workshops on grant writing both in the College and at the University level. At the CON, and offered through ONR for example, faculty have the opportunity to participate in manuscript and abstract writing workshops, think tanks to develop ideas, mock grant reviews, librarian services to facilitate literature searches, accountant services to facilitate developing budgets and statistician services. A faculty member not meeting expectations would have participation in these types of activities assigned with benchmarks (e.g., write and submit 2 manuscripts by end of the next academic year) as part of their

improvement plan. CON faculty provides a variety of service activities at local, regional, national, and international levels. Although no faculty has ever received below a 3 in service/practice, if such a score was given, the Division Directors during the annual review would review the service

opportunities and assist the faculty to select appropriate service activities for rank.

IV-G. The program defines and reviews formal complaints according to established policies.

Elaboration: The program defines what constitutes a formal complaint and maintains a record of formal complaints received. The program’s definition of formal complaints includes, at a minimum, student complaints. The program’s definition of formal complaints and the procedures for filing a complaint are communicated to relevant constituencies.

Program Response:

Procedures for filing formal complaints at the CON are outlined in the student handbook

(https://www.nursing.arizona.edu/OSA/PDF/OSA/DNP_Student_Handbook_2014_2015.pdf) and in the faculty handbook. In the past 5 years, there have been 18 grade appeals, admission/readmission appeals, and academic integrity violations. Table IV-G displays these complaints. The majority of these complaints did not require any program change and in each case, the appropriate procedures were strictly followed as outlined in the DNP Student Handbook and Graduate College policies (https://www.nursing.arizona.edu/OSA/PDF/OSA/DNP_Student_Handbook_2014_2015.pdf).Only one complaint (appeal) did result in a change: that clear guidelines for appeals procedures of

comprehensive exam decisions were not evident. The result of this process was to place clear guidelines for appealing comprehensive exam decisions in the handbook.

Table IV-G Formal Complaints and Appeals Year Description

2010

None

None