The National Academy of Kinesiology 2020 Review and Evaluation of Doctoral Programs in Kinesiology

in Kinesiology Review
View More View Less
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $24.95

Student 1 year online subscription

USD  $41.00

1 year online subscription

USD  $55.00

Student 2 year online subscription

USD  $79.00

2 year online subscription

USD  $105.00

The results of the 2020 review and ranking of U.S. doctoral programs in kinesiology conducted by the National Academy of Kinesiology (NAK) are presented. These results represent data collected for the  2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 calendar years for 43 programs. The rankings reflect data collected on program faculty (productivity, funding, and visibility) and program students (admissions, support, publications, and employment). The data for each assessment index were first transformed into z scores, and then the z scores converted into T-scores. Weights were applied to the T-scores of the indices and then summed to obtain a total T-score. Programs were ranked in two ways: one based on the total T-scores from the data not normalized (unadjusted) and the other with total T-scores from the data normalized with respect to the number of faculty members in each program (adjusted). In addition to program rankings, descriptive data are presented on faculty and student data.

Challis (jhc10@psu.edu) is with the Biomechanics Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.

  • Bassett, D.R., Fairbrother, J.T., Panton, L.B., Martin, P.E., & Swartz, A.M. (2018). Undergraduate enrollments and faculty resources in kinesiology at selected U.S. public universities: 2008–2017. Kinesiology Review, 7(4), 286294. doi:10.1123/kr.2018-0043

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dent, E. (2013). The observation, inquiry, and measurement challenges surfaced by complexity theory. In Managing the complex: Philosophy, theory and practice (Vol. 1, pp. 253283). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Finkelstein, M.J., Conley, V.M., & Schuster, J.H. (2016). The faculty factor: Reassessing the American academy in a turbulent era. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fuesting, M.A., & Schmidt, A. (2020). Faculty in the health professions: Growth, composition, and salaries. Knoxville, TN: College and University Professional Association for Human Resources.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hall, J.D., O’Connell, A.B., & Cook, J.G. (2017). Predictors of student productivity in biomedical graduate school applications. PLoS One, 12(1), e0169121. PubMed ID: 28076439 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169121

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hirsch, J.E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 1656916572. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kulczycki, E., Engels, T.C.E., Palanan, J., Bruun, K., Dušková, M., Guns, R., … Zuccala, A. (2018). Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: Evidence from eight European countries. Scientometrics, 116(1), 463486. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2711-0

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Langin, K. (2019). Ph.D. programs drop standardized exam. Science, 364(6443), 816. PubMed ID: 31147501 doi:10.1126/science.364.6443.816

  • Miller, C., & Stassun, K. (2014). A test that fails. Nature, 510(7504), 303304. doi:10.1038/nj7504-303a

  • Moneta-Koehler, L., Brown, A.M., Petrie, K.A., Evans, B.J., & Chalkley, R. (2017). The Limitations of the GRE in predicting success in biomedical graduate school. PLoS One, 12(1), e0166742. PubMed ID: 28076356 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166742

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2019). Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities: 2018. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Newell, K.M. (1990). Kinesiology: The label for the study of physical activity in higher education. Quest, 42(3), 269278.

  • Ostriker, J.P., Kuh, C.V., & Voytuk, J.A. (2011). A data-based assessment of research-doctorate programs in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Radicchi, F., & Castellano, C. (2012). Testing the fairness of citation indicators for comparison across scientific domains: The case of fractional citation counts. Journal of Informetrics, 6(1), 121130. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.09.002

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Seglen, P.O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ, 314(7079), 497. doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Spirduso, W.W., & Reeves, T.G. (2011). The National Academy of Kinesiology 2010 review and evaluation of doctoral programs in kinesiology. Quest, 63(4), 411440. doi:10.1080/00336297.2011.10483689

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Thomas, J.R., Clark, J.E., Feltz, D.L., Kretchmar, R.S., Morrow, J.R., Reeves, T.G., & Wade, M.G. (2007). The academy promotes, unifies, and evaluates doctoral education in kinesiology. Quest, 59(1), 174194. doi:10.1080/00336297.2007.10483547

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Thomas, J.R., & Reeves, T.G. (2006). A review and evaluation of doctoral programs 2000-2004 by the American Academy of Kinesiology and Physical Education. Quest, 58(1), 176196. doi:10.1080/00336297.2006.10491878

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ulrich, B.D., & Feltz, D.L. (2016). The National Academy of Kinesiology 2015 review and evaluation of doctoral programs in kinesiology. Kinesiology Review, 5(2), 101118. doi:10.1123/kr.2016-0004

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Voytuk, J.A., Kuh, C.V., Ostriker, J.P., and National Research Council. (2003). Assessing research-doctorate programs: A methodology study. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 7 7 7
Full Text Views 224 224 224
PDF Downloads 44 44 44