ASPH Core MPH Competency Development Project

1. ASPHCore MPH Competency Development Project ASPH Associate Deans’ Retreat Friday June 23, 2006 Dr. Jack Barnette and Dr. Sharon Krag

2. MPH Core Competency Development Project…Why? • Increased emphasis on accountability • Proliferation of competency-based training in public health • Challenges of 21st century practice • Recommendations by important national organizations (e.g. IOM) • Increasing incorporation of competencies into accreditation • Development of National Board of Public Health Examiners (NBPHE)

3. Two-Phased Process Phase 1 (2004-2005) Discipline-specific Competency Identification and Specification Phase 2 (2005-2006) Cross-cutting Competency Identification and Specification

4. Workgroups’ Charge Each workgroup is to identify eight to ten sub-competencies (KSOs – knowledge, skills, and other characteristics) that are critical to indicating accomplishment of the core competency.

5. Phase 1 Workgroups & Chairs • Biostatistics:  Jack Barnette (UAB); • Environmental Health:  Mark Robson (UMDNJ); • Epidemiology:  Michel Ibrahim (JHU) and Michael Moser (Akron Health Department and NEOUCOM); • Health Policy and Management:  Peggy Leatt (UNC) and Diana Hilberman (UCLA); • Social and Behavioral Sciences:  Kenneth McLeroy (Texas A&M) and Bill Satariano (UC-Berkeley); and, • Public Health Biology:  Sharon Krag (JHU) and Kathy Miner (Emory).

6. Phase 2 Workgroups & Chairs • Communication: Dean John Finnegan (Minnesota); • Diversity and Culture: Dr. Joseph Telfair (UAB); • Leadership: Dean James Kyle (LLU) • Professionalism: Dean Donna Petersen (USF); • Program Planning: Dr. Robert Goodman (Pittsburgh) and Dr. Sylvia Guendelman (UC-Berkeley); and, • Public Health Biology:  Sharon Krag (JHU) and Kathy Miner (Emory). • Systems Thinking: Dr. Jim Porto (UNC)

7. Aims • An integrated set of core MPH competencies with: • five basic public health sciences domains, and • seven cross-cutting domains • The set is intended to serve as a resource and guide • ASPH will not prescribe the methods nor processes for achievement

8. Definition of Core MPH Degree Competencies A unique set of applied knowledge, skills, and other attributes grounded in theory and evidence, for the broad practice of public health (ASPH, 2004)

9. These are competencies that every MPH student ought to be able to demonstrate upon graduation regardless of their major or area of specialization.

10. Upon graduation, what must a student with an MPH: • Know • Be able to do (technical and behavioral skills) • Value/appreciate (affective attributes)

11. Phase 1 Stats • Involvement of ASPH faculty experts, practitioners, and program reps (n = 135) • 48 competencies in five discipline-specific areas • Delphi response rate ranged from 72%-100% in the three rounds for each group (with a total average of 91%)

12. Phase 2 Stats • Participants (n=197) • 9 to 13 members in each core group • 17 to 28 members in each resource group • Total of 70 competencies in the 7 cross-cutting domains • Delphi response rate ranged from 66%-100% in the three rounds for each group (with a total average of 85%)

13. Stats, Cont. • 325 + faculty and practice partners participation • 48 + 70 = 118 Core Competencies

14. Important Components of the Process • Geared towards all MPH graduates, regardless of specialty area, background, or job trajectory • Built upon work of the Council on Linkages, CDC, member schools, etc. • Involvement of ASPH faculty experts, practitioners, and program reps (n = 135) • Use of nominal group processes (e.g. Delphi Technique)

15. Important Components, Cont. • Discipline-specific competencies reviewed for interdisciplinary integration into a core MPH set • Final consensus set to serve as a resource to improve quality and accountability of grad PH education  • The competencies will respect the uniqueness and diversity of schools and programs

16. Core Competency Graphic Model

17. Issues • Accreditation • Credentialing • Implementation

18. Issues • Accreditation (CEPH) “A school may develop its own competencies or may subscribe to competencies that have been promulgated by recognized public health organizations that demonstrate an understanding of public health practice needs. In public health specialty areas where there is profession-wide acceptance of specific competencies the school must subscribe to those accepted competencies or justify their modification.” - CEPH, Accreditation Criteria for Schools of Public Health, Amended June 2005

19. Issue – Accreditation Cont. • “…the intent of CEPH is that this criterion will apply only to competencies formally adopted by defined specialty organizations such as in the field of health education and that it will not apply to any documents that are designed to guide or advise schools in creating their own competencies. In particular, we seek assurance that ASPH’s and the schools’ ongoing efforts to better define competencies that we wish to instill in our graduates will not be made mandatory by this criterion.”

20. Issue – Accreditation Cont. “The Council has no intent to make the competencies recently distributed by ASPH and member schools mandatory by way of the accreditation criteria. The “specific competencies” to which the interpretive language in Criterion 2.6 refers relates to specialty areas (ie, concentrations, specializations, tracks, options). Our understanding is that the ASPH competencies are not meant to relate to specialty areas, but are intended to be general competencies for all MPH students, more in line with competencies related to core coursework. In addition, they are not accepted profession-wide or validated. Currently, the only competencies that meet this definition are those in health education.”

21. Issues - Credentialing • ASPH stands by the competencies as the result of an inclusive, well-vetted process that will contribute to the national discussion on the core of the MPH degree • ASPH anticipates that, in the absence of previous national consensus on competencies for the core of the MPH degree,these competencies may provide guidance, along with other sets, in the process of developing the exam

22. Issues - Implementation • Individual SPHs may review their own curricula in light of their mission, goals, and objectives against the competencies • The discipline-specific and the cross-cutting competencies are not necessarily taught in any single course • The model – in line with all competency models for a field – will never be finalized. This is the first of an ongoing iterative process for development. Hence this first model serves as the “baseline/launch” model that will need to be regularly reviewed as the field continues to evolve.

23. Future • Version 2.2 will include a glossary list and list of competency resources and will be presented to the Deans at their retreat • Version 2.3 will be presented to the ASPH Board of Directors.

24. Recommendations for Next Steps from the Education Committee • Dissemination: • Publish an article in a peer-reviewed journal. • Publish a commentary in AJPH. • Organize a special issue in PHR. • Encourage competency workgroup chairs and member to present at their professional associations such as Society for Epidemiological Research, CAMHE, etc. • Evaluation: • Explore opportunities for funding from organizations such as RWJF to evaluate the impact. • Develop a demonstration project, such as the NCHL model. • Utilize practice partners for evaluation. • Workshop: • Convene a similar workshop next year to focus on the competency utilization.

25. For Discussion • Based on your institution’s work to date on integrating competencies into your curriculum/curricula: • What did you find to be the most difficult aspect in getting the initiative started at your institution? • Were there any key barriers to initial faculty acceptance of and support for the initiative? If so, what key questions/concerns had to first be addressed with your faculty and other planners/implementers?

26. For Discussion Cont. • What were some of the key success factors during the early stages of the initiative in relation to getting “buy-in” for the process? • What are some of the key considerations for ASPH as the Model is disseminated in relation to schools utilizing the competencies in their curricula? • Are there other suggestions/recommendations you have for schools as they launch similar competency-based endeavors based on the ASPH Core Competency Model?

27. Ways to Move to Next Steps • Strategic Priority • Cultural Dimension • Technical Dimension • Structural Dimensions/Forums of Learning