The use of statewide program review results in relation to program review purpose, approach and governance structure as perceived by academic officers.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of statewide program review results and to identify barriers and benefits associated with using the results. Program review purpose, approach and governance structure were examined for their influence on the use of the results. State-level academic officers were surveyed to elicit their opinions on the use of program review results and the barriers and benefits associated with the use of the results. The chi-square test of the independence of categorical variables was the primary statistical analysis. Evaluation of the data indicated that when assessing quality was identified as the purpose for the review, there was a high use of the results for improving quality. On the other hand, the purpose of eliminating duplicate or inefficient programs was not associated with high use of the results for program discontinuation. The shared responsibility and consultant based approaches were associated with a high use of the results for improving program quality, recognizing programs of excellence and integrating into planning. These approaches have greater institutional involvement. No significant relationship was discovered between governance structure and the use of program review results. Coordinating boards and governing boards were very similar in their use of program review results. Barriers to the use of program review results were primarily related to process, authority and a reluctance to act. The benefits cited by the state level academic officers generally mirrored the stated purposes of program review, particularly improved program quality and enhanced decision-making. In addition, the use of the results can empower and motivate institutions to take action on programs. With program review serving a myriad of purposes and needs, confusion may reduce effectiveness. The purpose of program review needs to be clearly communicated to the institutions and the institutions need robe involved in the process. Improvement should remain the primary purpose of program review