Pre-Health

Professions
Office
Assessment Proposal
Greg Grenard and Frank Inglima
Organizational Context
Loyola University Chicago
“Preparing People to Lead Extraordinary Lives”

● Founded in 1870
● Chicago’s only Jesuit University
● Over 80 undergraduate, 80 minors,
and 170 graduate programs
● Total enrollment: 16,673
● Roughly 150,000 alumni

“We are Chicago’s Jesuit, Catholic

University.
A diverse community seeking
God in all things and working to expand
knowledge in the service of
humanity through learning, justice and
faith.”
 Program Context
STUDENT
ACADEMIC SERVICES
Serving roughly 300 students seeking careers in:
● Medical doctor
● Doctor of osteopathy
● Dental
CAREER ● Pharmacy
● Physician’s assistant
DEVELOPMENT CENTER ● Physical Therapy
● Occupational Therapy
● Optometry
● Podiatry
● Veterinary
PRE-HEALTH
PROFESSIONS OFFICE Five staff members:
● One director
● Two advisors
● One administrative assistant
● One grad assistant

(Additional PHAdvisors from the

faculty population)
Situation
The nature of our assessment is summative

1st formal assessment proposed for the PHPO

Purpose: To provide justification for maintaining or

raising the resources and funding of the PHPO and
its processes.
Increase upper administration’s understanding of
the PHPO

★ Doing more with less

★ Number of pre-health students increasing

Impacts:
➢ PH staff
➢ PH students
➢ University administration
➢ CDC staff and Academic Advisors
Activities & Outcomes
Assessment Questions

1
Do students who participate in the Office of Pre-Health Advising demonstrate

achievement of the program’s medium-term learning outcomes ?

2 Which processes, if any, promote or hinder the achievement of the student

learning outcomes?

Additionally, since medical schools are interested in applicants of any college

3 major, are student learning outcomes fulfilled to different degrees depending

on the students’ majors?

Quantitative Approach
Cross-sectional approach
● Single point in time: mid-November, senior year
● End of PHPAC cycle
● Students have participated in all PHPO processes at this time

Correlational design
● Relationships between two variables
● Assessing processes of PHPO and medium-term outcomes of office
● Survey questions will ask for both information on both
● Positive correlation = PHPO students are likely meeting medium-term
outcomes because of process-related elements
Quantitative Analysis
Descriptive statistics:
● Organize/summarize data
● Key demographics
● Achievement of program learning outcomes
● Frequencies: describe response distribution for each survey item
● Cross-tabulations: organization of data by academic major
● Central tendency: means of answers used to determine answer
averages
Inferential statistics:
● Draw conclusions about PHPO advisees
● Looking for correlational coefficients between survey items

Independent samples t-test:

● Calculate means of two groups and determine if difference statistically
significant

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA):

● Measuring the difference in mean among demographic groups
○ i.e., differences among racial/ethnic, 1st Gen., etc.
Qualitative Approach
Focus Group:
● Divided among:
○ No advisor interactions
○ ≥1 advisor interaction(s)
● Rationale:
○ Greater insight into impact of PHPO advising on outcomes
○ No advisor interactions almost a “control group”
● Both groups may/may not have been involved in PHPO processes
● Demographics:
○ Exploratory
○ Academic majors- 3rd assessment question
 Qualitative Analysis
Attribute coding
● Sort participant answers by demographics
● Exploratory reasons
Descriptive coding
● Identify themes relating to each focus group (advisor interactions)
● Deductive rather than inductive approach
○ This is due to our knowledge of +80% acceptance rates to health professional schools
○ Theory- the PHPO processes/interactions are responsible for high acceptance rate
● Looking for deeper meaning
● Coding data by looking for information pertaining to medium-term outcomes
Parallel coding
Pattern coding
● Identify relationships in participant responses within particular demographic
○ i.e., first-generation students and admission requirements
Construct map
● Four outcomes- four construct categories
● Word repetition
● Cutting/sorting technique
● Member checks
Inter-rater reliability/triangulation
 Budget
1. Data collection instruments
a. Survey administration via Survey Monkey = $0
b. Focus groups administration
i. Facilitation equipment (script on note cards or paper) = $0
ii. Audio recording equipment (existing smart phone) = $0
iii. Note recording equipment (pencil, sheets of paper) = $0
iv. Consent forms (sheets of paper) = $0
v. LUC space rental (Mundelein Greenhouse) = $0
vi. Food/beverages for focus groups = $300
2. Data analysis
a. Analytic software for survey data (SPSS on LUC intranet) = $0
b. Focus groups’ data analyses
i. Coding/sorting and interpreting transcript data (Greg and Frank) = $0
3. Reporting results
a. Printed reports for stakeholders (PHPO Staff, Administration) = $0
b. Electronic briefings for PHPO students (emails) = $0
Total Budget Estimate: $300
 Assessment Timeline
& Next Steps
Assessment timeline:
● October 2018: Survey pilot tested, corrections made if needed
● November 2018: Email the survey with the two reminder emails, conduct analysis
via software
● December 2018: Focus group protocol pilot tested, corrections made if needed,
email participation letter
● January 2019: Reserve meeting space, administer two weekend focus groups
● February 2019: Analyze and code focus group data
● March 2019: Prepare report/present findings
○ Upper Loyola administration, PHPO staff, PHPO student briefings

Next Steps:
Post-assessment:
● Based on the summative report, PHPO staff can decide if they want further
assessment of processes for formative purposes
● If desired, this assessment will start in October 2020 so we will have a new group
of Pre-Health student participants
Questions?
Thank You!