« Back

Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.1

The institution identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of the results in each of the following areas: (Institutional effectiveness)

3.3.1.1. educational programs, to include student learning outcomes

√ CompliantNon-Compliant

Narrative

The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB) is in compliance as it engages in an ongoing process of identifying expected outcomes, including student learning outcomes, measuring the extent to which these outcomes are attained and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of the results in its educational programs.

Introduction
UTMB is committed to the ongoing improvement of its educational programs based on systematic assessment of student learning. This narrative focuses on assessment procedures developed in response to UTMB’s 2008 Reaffirmation of Accreditation. The assessment process continues to evolve and mature as a primary method of ensuring and documenting quality and excellence in UTMB’s instructional programs. Currently, each educational program defines expected student learning outcomes, measures the degree to which these outcomes are attained, and employs the results of this measurement and analysis process to improve its academic programs.

The narrative is divided into the following sections:
1. Policy Framework for Assessment
2. Assessment Planning Process
3. Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Process and Use of Results for Program Improvement
4. External Program Review and the Use of Results for Program Improvement
5. Program Accreditation Process and the Use of Results for Program Improvement.

Policy Framework for Assessment
Strategic Planning
UTMB has established a strategic plan, “The Road Ahead,” that is aligned with our mission, vision and values (1). This plan encompasses a comprehensive set of strategic directions that guide the institution’s work. This set of strategic directions has been further elaborated into measurable initiatives whose degree of attainment is updated quarterly by campus leaders on the Academic Enterprise Scorecard 2013-2015 (2). This strategic planning process is aligned with the University of Texas (UT) System Board of Regents’ strategic planning process entitled “A Framework for Advancing Excellence throughout The University of Texas System” (3).

Assessment Planning Process
The primary strategic goal driving our assessment process is directly related to our educational mission and states, “Provide innovative educational programs and curricula that are continuously improved based on state and nationally recognized standards and metrics.” The internal procedural rules governing our assessment processes flow from the strategic planning process described above. The primary institutional policy supporting the assessment of educational programs at UTMB is Institutional Policy 10.1.1, Academic Program Evaluation, found in the UTMB Institutional Handbook of Operating Procedures (IHOP) (4). This policy originated in 2006 and was reviewed in 2012 and lists key quality indicators that guide programs in the development of their assessment plans.

In order to guide programs in the development of assessment plans based on student learning and other measures, the Institutional Educational Effectiveness Committee, which serves in an advisory campacity to the Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE) and the Academic Affairs Council (AAC), created a cross walk in the IHOP policy, linking the quality indicators to sources of data, their measurement methods, and the various uses, program improvements and otherwise, of the resulting data (5). Using this (6) and other planning documents, each degree granting program developed assessment plans focused on the definition, measurement, analysis, and use of results of student learning objectives adapted from the Nichols five-column model (7).

The OIE provides operational guidance, feedback, and technical assistance in the development and finalization of assessment plans. The office also provides ongoing assessment oversight and feedback to academic programs and assists in the entry of findings and the documentation of use of results.

Upon UTMB’s Reaffirmation of Accreditation in 2008, the university formalized and augmented the assessment process. With the support of the Provost and the Council of Deans, OIE representatives met with the leadership and faculty of each degree granting program (8). These meetings consisted of explaining the assessment process, assisting programs in identifying objectives, developing measurement methods or identifying data sources responsive to the objectives, developing attainment targets, and providing tools for carrying out the measurement process.

The measurement process is flexible and interactive and takes into account the differences between our health-related research-focused programs and our health care practitioner-focused programs (Figure 1). Our clinical programs rely on standardized examinations, observed structure clinical examinations, and national licensure exams as a significant portion of their assessment process. These are high stakes examinations both for students to advance in their educational career path as well as for the programs to maintain their good standing with their accrediting bodies. UTMB’s research-based programs do not have this type of assessment tools available to them.

Flow Chart


Using a paper-based five column model, programs worked through the various assessment points found in the academic progression of a typical student from matriculation to graduation. The process was very useful in identifying outcomes, guiding thinking about measurements and attainment targets and the logistics of assessment. The results of this planning process were draft assessment plans (9) (10) (11).

The draft plans were reviewed by OIE and feedback was provided to program faculty (12). Once draft plans met the assessment criteria, they were entered into UTMB’s assessment support software, WEAVEOnline© (12a).

Part of the assessment planning process involved the development of rubrics or scales by academic programs to be used by panels of faculty in assessing student work. These rubrics provide the basic data used by programs to assess their educational offerings. Rubrics were developed by querying faculty as to the reflecting elements they expected to see when assessing student work. These elements were then captured as a statement and measurement scales were attached (13). They were then further developed for the various stages of a students’ progression though the academic program. The results of this process are aggregated and the summary data reviewed on an annual basis by faculty. Several examples of completed rubrics are included as illustration of this process (14) (15).

The last step in the annual assessment process is a meeting between OIE, the program directors and faculty to review the assessment plans, discuss any proposed changes, review findings, use of results, program and student accomplishments, and the development of action plans, if needed. Changes and updates to assessment plans are made and this marks the beginning of the next assessment cycle.

The assessment cycle encompasses the academic year. Many programs receive assessment results from accrediting bodies at various times during the year. Doctoral programs conduct dissertation defenses or comprehensive exams at different times during the academic year. Thus, our assessment cycle is standardized as to beginning and ending with two cycles operating simultaneously as prior year findings are entered when received and current year findings are captured as appropriate.

Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
Assessment Documentation
The table below contains links to detailed assessment reports containing objectives, attainment targets, measurements, findings and action plans. The detailed assessment reports cover the time period 2008-2012. New programs for which findings are not yet due or programs for which assessment plans are in development can be seen in an appendix at the end of this narrative. These detailed assessment reports provide evidence that each degree granting program engages in a process of defining, measuring, and analyzing the degree of attainment of student learning objectives.

Academic Programs' Detailed Assessment Reports
School Academic Program
School of Medicine Medicine, MD (16)
School of NursingNursing, BSN (17)
Nursing, MSN (18)
School of Health ProfessionsClinical Lab Sciences, BS (19)
Clinical Lab Sciences Categorical Certificate – Chemistry (20)
Clinical Lab Sciences Categorical Certificate – Hematology (21)
Clinical Lab Sciences Categorical Certificate – Immunohematology (22)
Clinical Lab Sciences Categorical Certificate – Microbiology (23)
Clinical Lab Sciences Categorical Certificate – Hematology/Chemistry (24)
Clinical Lab Sciences, MS-CLS Prepared (25)
Clinical Lab Sciences, MS-CLS Non-Prepared (26)
Clinical Lab Sciences, MS, Transfusion Medicine (27)
Occupational Therapy, MS (28)
Physical Therapy, DPT (29)
Physical Therapy, t-DPT (30)
Physician Assistant Studies, MS (31)
Respiratory Care, BS (32)
Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, PhD (33)
Cell Biology, PhD (34)
Clinical Science, PhD (35)
Experimental Pathology, PhD (36)
Medical Humanities, PhD (37)
Masters of Medical Science, MMS (38)
Microbiology and Immunology, PhD (39)
Neuroscience, PhD (40)
Nursing Science, PhD (41)
Pharmacology and Toxicology, PhD (42)
Population Health Sciences, PhD (43)
Public Health, MPH (44)
Rehabilitative Sciences, PhD (45)


Use of Results for Program Improvement
One method programs use to track program improvement is the Action Plan option in WEAVEOnline. The following are excerpts from a larger Action Plan Report compiling program targets, findings, and action plans implemented during the assessment period 2008-2012 (46).

Clinical Lab Science 2008-2009
Target: Certification Pass Rate and Scores: 90% pass rate for those students taking the certification exam within 6 months of graduation. Interventions when pass rate falls below 90% include curriculum changes: course content, restructure courses.

Findings (2008-2009) – Target: Not Met
Certification Scores and Pass Rate: N = 14; UTMB Mean: 466; National Mean: 483; Pass Rate: 86%


Action Taken
Program director and faculty reviewed plan. Examination scores for online students were lower in two of seven areas by a statistically significant amount that on-campus students. The difference approached significance in a third area. The following changes were made:
  • Interactive video over the web, used to answer online student questions, review games, more class time and more recorded sessions were added to the Seminar.
  • The study guides provided during the preceptorships were tied to the objectives of the seminar course and the questions on the examinations.
  • Specific objectives for each questions missed on the final examination were provided to students.

Follow-up
Findings (2009-2010) - Target: Met
Certification Scores and Pass Rate: N = 15; UTMB Mean: 533; National Mean: 483; Pass Rate: 100%.

After intervention in 2009, the examinations scores had equalized for online and classroom based students, with the exception of one area. Program Director and faculty reviewed assessment findings and noted that <50% of the students had taken the certification examination within the first 6 months of graduation. Students who graduated in 2009 were given information about how delays in taking the certification examination negatively affected their pass rate. This resulted in approximately 2/3 of the students taking the certification examination within the first 6 months.

Physical Therapy 2009-2010
Target: 90 percent of students will pass the NPTE on the first attempt.

Findings (2009-2010) – Target: Not Met
88 percent of students passed the NPTE on the first attempt.

Action Taken
Last year's action plan greatly improved the pass rate, but missed the target by 2%. In 2011 we will graduate our first DPT class and will be able to discern if the curriculum changes that were made enhances the performance of students on the NPTE. In the new curriculum, Differential Diagnosis is a new course that incorporates a review of systems, a review course for all students and a capstone test that requires students to assimilate all content of the curriculum into a decision for patient management. Until we see the results from the DPT students on the NPTE, no further major changes will be made to address the pass rate.

Follow-up
Findings (2010-2011) – Target: Met (DPT)
Per Federation for PT Licensure, 98% of the students passed the National Physical Therapist Licensure Exam the first-time taking. 100% passed the licensure exam.

Microbiology and Immunology 2009-2010
Target: 70 percent will receive a rating of Entirely Satisfactory/Satisfactory on first attempt (Evaluation of Qualifying Examination Oral Rubric).

Findings (2009-2010) – Target: Partially Met
63% received a rating of Entirely Satisfactory/Satisfactory on first attempt

Action Taken
The program director and faculty organized bi-weekly meetings with qualifying exam candidates from October through March to discuss formulating and rigorous testing of scientific hypotheses.

Follow-up
Findings (2010-2011) – Target: Met
80% received a rating of Entirely Satisfactory/Satisfactory on first attempt. (10 students)

Nursing, BSN 2010-2011
Target: 94% of BSN graduates will pass the NCLEX-RN on first attempt.
Findings (2010-2011) – Target: Partially Met
84.58% of students passed NCLEX- RN on the first attempt.

Action Taken
Each course has added content to curriculum to put an emphasis on use of ATI for testing and curriculum development in order to assist students in mastery of content. (1) Every cohort of students attends a focused Pharmacology seminar; (2) Every graduating student attends a four day Hurst Seminar. Three of the days are face-to-face with an instructor and the fourth day is online; (3) The rigor of examination preparation is being increased by having faculty provide additional NCLEX preparation seminars to students.

Follow-up
Findings (2011-2012) – Target: Met
95.60% of students passed NCLEX- RN on the first attempt.

Medicine, MD 2011-2012
Target
The mean score for first-time test takers will be greater than or equal to the national average. The first-time pass rate will greater than or equal to the national average.

Findings (2011-2012) – Target: Not Met
The first-time pass rate was not greater than or equal to the national average. (UTMB 94% - National 97%) The mean score for first-time test takers were greater than or equal to the national average. (UTMB 237 - National 237)

Actions Taken
The SOM has established the new position of Senior Associate Dean for Educational Assessment to better oversee and coordinate clinical skills teaching and assessment. 2. Standards for clinical skills student performance in Years 1 and 2 have been raised, feedback is given to all students who fail an internal clinical skills examination, and remediation programs has been intensified.

Multiple Source of Program Improvement
Academic programs at UTMB are constantly improving their educational offerings. Many of these changes and improvements are in response to various factors: changes in accreditation requirements, the recruitment of new faculty with new and innovative research agendas, student input, changes in science, and evolution of the state of knowledge in a discipline. The annual assessment review meeting attempts to capture these changes and document them as improvements to the educational program (47) (48) (49) (50).

Use of Results Supplement Examples

2008-2009

Cell Biology

The program director informed faculty on each respective committee of assessment results. Faculty recognized the need for specific categories of assessment rubrics and training for faculty. Seven rubrics were updated as a result of the review.

Clinical Laboratory Sciences

Program director and faculty reviewed plan. Examination scores for online students were lower in two of seven areas by a statistically significant amount that on-campus students. The difference approached significance in a third area. The following changes were made:

  • Interactive video over the web, used to answer online student questions, review games, more class time and more recorded sessions were added to the Seminar.
  • The study guides provided during the preceptorships were tied to the objectives of the seminar course and the questions on the examinations.
  • Specific objectives for each questions missed on the final examination were provided to students.

2009-2010

Microbiology and Immunology

Faculty organized bi-weekly meetings with qualifying exam candidates from October through March to discuss formulating and rigorous testing of scientific hypotheses. Added new mandatory student research seminar where first-year students get information on the program and learn departmental research policies. Course is mandatory for those students not in candidacy with a requirement to meet weekly. Students in candidacy required to come to 50% of seminars and receive a grade for the course. Added three faculty including two immunologists and one virologist.

Pharmacology and Toxicology

Program Director and faculty held a discussion over several months that resulted in discarding the existing qualifying exam and the implementation of an early research proposal in the form of an NIH style 10-grant application that could also serve as the basis of an actual dissertation proposal.

2010-2011

Occupational Therapy

The program director stated the program has been shortened by 2 semesters. It is now 6 semesters in length. In addition, applicants must have a 3.5 GPA (average 3.4 for admissions for the previous year) and complete a writing sample as part of the new pre-requisites. New faculty members have been recruited to the program.

The program underwent a complete review and reform of its curriculum. The program director and faculty members have utilized curriculum mapping to develop a new integrated curriculum. The curriculum strongly connects basic sciences to field work by sequencing clinical courses with basic science course, all in a fast-paced professional environment.

All of the courses are integrated and reinforce the knowledge and skills taught in the previous semester. An applied reasoning course has been added to each semester. This course showcases case studies and provides students with the opportunity to review the semester’s courses/clinical work as well as take computerized tests similar to their national certification examinations.

BSN

The School of Nursing is changing the BSN curriculum to incorporate the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) Differentiated Essential Competencies (DESC) basic measurements will be initiated in December 2013. They will be integrated into current assessment plans.

Pathophysiology and pharmacology, formally taught as one course, will be taught as separate courses due to lower than expected student performance.

A series of video tapes has been created by a faculty member as a learning tool for students. The video tapes are being used to teach health assessment to students. This helps students make better use of time in the lab and of their time in general. Additional faculty members are starting to utilize video tapes as a complement to classroom sessions.

The BSN Nursing Program has a new Director as of September 2011. Due to results on NCLEX, the BSN program has been having multiple meetings with faculty and invited consultants on the following: incorporating teaching strategies for improved learning (Sylvia Rayfield Associates [SRA]); test writing at the application and higher levels to match NCLEX testing (SRA); 2 day meeting to improve use of ATI testing results (ATI); use of new testing resources and methodologies to teach students electronic charting (Elsevier).

Students were invited to apply for competitive-based one week certificate programs in various clinical areas such as the operating room and transplants in order to improve their knowledge of nursing and help make them more competitive for jobs. These courses will be offered through UTMB and other Texas medical center hospitals during the Christmas break.

2011-2012

Clinical Laboratory Sciences

CLS-BS: The program level assessment plan has an unmet target (Measure 1) regarding certification pass rates and scores. The program director and faculty have developed an action plan that is currently being implemented. The action plan consists of a curriculum review by program faculty.

Each faculty member is charged with reviewing their specific course content and developing strategies to improve. Curriculum areas currently under review include laboratory mathematics, and operations and clinical chemistry. In addition, several simulation scenarios are being developed and funding is being sought to provide training in laboratory information systems.

This last area was formerly covered during clinical rotations but many rotation sites have curtailed the ability of students to have hands-on training with laboratory information systems. Thus, an effort is underway to develop simulations and hands-on training methods.

Physician Assistant Studies

There were no assessment-based changes reported this cycle. However, the program has shortened the program to better sequence courses and to allow students to complete their studies in August. This was accomplished by placing more emphasis on clinical skills and pathophysiology and decreasing research requirements.

The program director and faculty implemented a process for identifying at-risk students and providing intensive mentoring. At-risk students are identified by faculty in basic sciences courses, essentially those with low grades in pathophysiology and other basic sciences. Students are provided with intense mentoring and oversight to improve their performance. The performance and outcomes of this program will be monitored and reported during a future assessment cycle.

School External Reviews
Degree granting programs at UTMB are also subject to review by a panel of outside reviewers every seven years (51). This policy has long been in place at UTMB, but in the past several years, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), which leads and coordinates Texas’ higher education institutions, has engaged in sequential but related rule-making activities that have impacted external reviews.

The first was the development in 2008, revised and published in 2010, of the “18 Characteristics of Doctoral Programs,” a set of descriptive measures that provides a snapshot of various characteristics of doctoral programs. Each institution with doctoral programs is required to complete and publish these measures on its website. These measures are intended to provide information to programs for self-improvement, as well as to those with an interest in doctoral education, such as current and future students and their families and the public at large (52).

The second rule-making activity undertaken by the THECB was the codification into administrative rules of the external review process. Where formerly this process had been largely guided and carried out by each institution, the actions of the THECB created an administrative rule governing this process. Each institution was required to submit a schedule for review of each of its doctoral programs (53). Further, the administrative rule prescribed very specific procedures for review, follow-up, and data to be reviewed, of which the “18 Characteristics of Doctoral Programs” is a major component (54). In response, UTMB developed an internal policy to guide programs in this process (55).

Below is evidence of program review both for programs reviewed prior to the THECB actions and for those after the THECB action.

External Reviews
School/Program Date
Cell Biology 2011 (56)
Masters of Medical Science (57)
Neuroscience 2011 (58)
Nursing Science PhD2013 (59)


Program-Specific Accreditation
The pursuit of excellence and continuous improvement through student learning assessment is embedded in the culture of health education. All of our clinical programs maintain program- specific accreditation that require each accredited program to collect specific measures, analyze them in a meaningful manner, and take improvement actions based on that analysis (60).

Below are accreditation self studies that demonstrate compliance with accreditation standards for our individually accredited programs.
Accreditation Self Studies
Entity Program Accredited Date of Accreditation Link to Most Recent Self Study or Accreditation Report
Council on Education in Public Health (CEPH) Master of Public Health November 17, 2009 (61)
National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Sciences Clinical Laboratory Sciences (CLS-BS) October 31, 2010 (62)
The Accreditation Review Commission on Education for the Physician Assistant, Inc. (ARC-PA) Physicians Assistant Studies (MPAS) September 2010 (63)
The Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics (ACEND) Nutrition and Metabolism (MS) Candidacy for Accreditation Approved May 2013 (64)

Sources
1 The Road Ahead: Institutional Vision 2013-2015. UTMB Health. pp. 8.
http://www.utmb.edu/strategic_vision/
2 Academic Enterprise Scorecard 2013-2105. Goal 3.1. pp. 4.
http://www.utmb.edu/strategic_vision/Scorecards/
3 A Framework for Advancing Excellence throughout The University of Texas System.
http://www.utsystem.edu/sites/utsfiles/offices/chancellor/assets/UT_System_Framework_Update.pdf
4 IHOP 10.1.1. Academic Program Evaluation. UTMB 10/11/2012.
http://www.utmb.edu/policies_and_procedures/IHOP/Academic/IHOP%2010.01.01%20Academic%20Program%20Evaluation.pdf
5 Academic Program Evaluation at UTMB. Crosswalk of key quality indicators. 2011.
http://www.utmb.edu/oie/assessment/source_documents/IHOPKeyIndicators.pdf
6 Assessment Planning Template: Five Column Model.
[Hard copy]
7 Nichols, James, Nichols, Karen. A Road Map for Improvement of Student Learning and Support Services Through Assessment, New York: Agathon Press, 2005
8 Letter to Program Chairs From Provost and Deans – September 1, 2008
9 Experimental Pathology PhD Draft Assessment Plan
[Hard copy]
10 Preventive Medicine Community Health PhD Draft Assessment Plan
[Hard copy]
11 Nursing PhD Draft Assessment Plan [Hard copy]
12 Assessment Criteria Email to Program Directors
[Hard copy]
12a WEAVEOnline© Assessment Software
http://www.weaveonline.com/what-is-weave-online/
13 Neuroscience PhD Draft Assessment Plan
[Hard copy}
14 Nursing PhD Program Ongoing Dissertation Assessment Completed Rubrics
[Hard copy]
15 Nursing PhD Program Dissertation Proposal Review Assessment Rubrics
[Hard copy]
16 School of Medicine, MD Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
17 School of Nursing, BSN Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
18 School of Nursing, MSN Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
19 School of Health Professions, Clinical Lab Sciences, BS Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
20 School of Health Professions, Clinical Lab Sciences, Categorical Certificate – Chemistry Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
21 School of Health Professions, Clinical Lab Sciences, Categorical Certificate – Hematology Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
22 School of Health Professions, Clinical Lab Sciences, Categorical Certificate – Immunohematology Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
23 School of Health Professions, Clinical Lab Sciences, Categorical Certificate – Microbiology Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
24 School of Health Professions, Clinical Lab Sciences, Categorical Certificate – Hematology/Chemistry Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
25 School of Health Professions, Clinical Lab Sciences, MS-CLS Prepared Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
26 School of Health Professions, Clinical Lab Sciences, MS-CLS Non-Prepared Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
27 School of Health Professions, Clinical Lab Sciences, MS, Transfusion Medicine Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
28 School of Health Professions, Occupational Therapy, MS Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
29 School of Health Professions, Physical Therapy, DPT Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
30 School of Health Professions, Physical Therapy, t-DPT Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
31 School of Health Professions, Physician Assistant Studies, MS Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
32 School of Health Professions, Respiratory Care, BS Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
33 Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, PhD Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
34 Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Cell Biology, PhD Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
35 Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Clinical Science, PhD Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
36 Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Experimental Pathology, PhD Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
37 Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Medical Humanities, PhD Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
38 Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Masters of Medical Science Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
39 Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Microbiology and Immunology, PhD Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
40 Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Neuroscience, PhD Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
41 Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nursing Science, PhD Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
42 Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Pharmacology and Toxicology, PhD Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
43 Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Population Health Sciences, PhD Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
44 Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Public Health Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
45 Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Rehabilitative Sciences, PhD Detailed Assessment Report
[Hard copy]
46 Academic Assessment Action Plans Report
[Hard copy]
47 Assessment Review 2008-2009
[Hard copy]
48 Assessment Review 2009-2010
[Hard copy]
49 Assessment Review 2010-2011
[Hard copy]
50 Assessment Review 2011-2012
[Hard copy]
51 Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences Bylaws
http://gsbs.utmb.edu/_pdf/BylawsandPolicies.pdf
52 18 Characteristics of Doctoral Programs
http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/index.cfm?objectid=E0014CFE-F86C-6F22- A794036BF682835E&flushcache=1&showdraft=1
53 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) External Program Review Schedule
[Hard copy]
54 Texas Administrative Code, Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 5, Subchapter C, Rule 5.52
http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=19&pt=1&ch=5&rl=52
55 IHOP Policy 10.1.3 Review of Existing Degree Programs
http://www.utmb.edu/policies_and_procedures/IHOP/Academic/IHOP%2010.01.03%20Review%20of%20Existing%20Degree%20Programs.pdf
56 Cell Biology PhD External Review
[Hard copy]
57 Master of Medical Science External Review
58 Neuroscience External Review
[Hard copy]
59 Nursing Science PhD External Review
[Hard copy]
60 UTMB Programs and Accrediting Bodies
{Hard copy}
61 Masters of Public Health Accreditation Self-Study
[Hard copy]
62 Clinical Laboratory Sciences Accreditation Self-Study
63 Physician’s Assistant Studies Accreditation Self-Study
[Hard copy]
64 Nutrition and Metabolism Accreditation Self-Study
[Hard copy]

Right Column

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, test link adipiscing elit. Nullam dignissim convallis est. Quisque aliquam. Donec faucibus. Nunc iaculis suscipit dui. Nam sit amet sem. Aliquam libero nisi, imperdiet at, tincidunt nec, gravida vehicula, nisl. Praesent mattis, massa quis luctus fermentum, turpis mi volutpat justo, eu volutpat enim diam eget metus. Maecenas ornare tortor. Donec sed tellus eget sapien fringilla nonummy. Mauris a ante. Suspendisse quam sem, consequat at, commodo vitae, feugiat in, nunc. Morbi imperdiet augue quis tellus.