In this article we present the results of the 2015 review and ranking of U.S. doctoral programs in kinesiology conducted by the National Academy of Kinesiology (NAK) and based on data for the calendar years 2010 through 2014. This is the third consecutive five-year review and represents the only continuous effort to create rankings for the field of kinesiology today. As in previous reviews, this evaluation was built, using objective measures, on a norm-referenced survey of kinesiology doctoral programs in the United States. Of the 77 programs invited to participate, 52 provided complete sets of the required data. The raw data comprised 9 faculty indices contributing 66% of the total score, and 7 doctoral student indices, which made up the remaining 34%. Raw data for individual indices were converted to normative values by first transforming them into z-scores and then converting the z-scores into T-scores, to which weightings were applied. From the total T-scores, two sets of rankings were determined: unadjusted and adjusted to number of faculty members in each program. Rankings based on total T-scores are presented as well as T-scores for individual indices for each program. We also share raw data means and standard deviations for individual variables, organized into subgroups based on total T-scores. Finally, we compare the outcomes of this review with the previous review conducted by the NAK.
The National Academy of Kinesiology 2015 Review and Evaluation of Doctoral Programs in Kinesiology
Beverly D. Ulrich and Deborah L. Feltz
In the article by Whitall, J., “Physical Activity Alone May Enhance Health But it May Not Reduce Disability in Chronic Stroke Survivors,” in Kinesiology Review, 4(1), pp. 3–10, http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/kr.2014-0072, the affiliation listed for the author was incomplete. In addition to the Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, Jill Whitall is affiliated with the Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, England. The online version of the article has been corrected.