Global chiropractic accreditation standards:Content assessment and a modified-Delphi and nominal consensus process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction & Aim: Standards from the four international chiropractic program<br/>accrediting agencies have not been systematically studied and analyzed for content.<br/>An assessment of standards will offer valuable information to facilitate communication<br/>between stakeholders. This study categorized program standards and student<br/>competencies from the four chiropractic accreditation agencies worldwide, identifying<br/>similarities and differences.<br/>• Methods: A modified-Delphi study with 21 international chiropractic education expert<br/>panelists was performed from December 1, 2023, to April 18, 2024. Current versions<br/>of the accreditation standards from four international accreditation agencies were<br/>retrieved from publicly facing Internet pages. The agencies were the Council on<br/>Chiropractic Education (United States), European Council on Chiropractic Education<br/>(Europe, United Kingdom, South Africa), Council on Chiropractic Education<br/>Australasia (Australia, New Zealand), and the Council on Chiropractic Education<br/>Canada (Canada). Panelists participated in four consensus rounds of review and<br/>coded all items about program standards and student competencies across<br/>documents. The resulting codes were analyzed for frequency across the accrediting<br/>agencies.<br/>• Results: The final consensus round resulted in high agreement for coding (98%<br/>student competencies, 99% program standards). The student competencies resulted<br/>in 1082 codes, with an average of 4.36 codes per item. The program statements<br/>resulted in 248 codes, with an average of 1.82 codes per item. There were similarities<br/>across all accreditation agencies regarding emphasis and content.<br/>• Conclusion: The findings of this study show similarity and consistency across<br/>accreditation agencies. These findings help to clarify concepts within chiropractic<br/>accreditation and will facilitate dialog about global chiropractic education among
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".