Microsoft Word 2007 ichrie conference Proceedings Final-Final 06-06-07. doc

-5.410 
589 
.000 
-551 
FT/PT ratio 
3.91 
3.37 
5.959 
589 
.000 
.538 
Gender diversity – faculty 
3.42 
2.89 
4.998 
589 
.000 
.531 
% seeking adv. Training 
3.29 
3.77 
-5.790 
585 
.000 
-.474 
# of student ACF members 
2.97 
3.44 
-4.529 
587 
.000 
-.471 
*Gender diversity-students 
3.42 
2.89 
4.029 
586 
.000 
.420 
*# of demo laboratories 
3.59 
4.01 
-4.639 
307.035 
.000 
-.418 
ACF accreditation 
3.65 
4.03 
-3.694 586 
.000 
-.382 
*Ethnic diversity – students 
3.11 
2.73 
3.770 
419.008 
.000 
.381 
Ethnic diversity – faculty 
3.42 
3.07 
3.352 
590 
.001 
.347 
*Part. in competitions 
3.75 
4.10 
-3.799 
313.591 
.000 
-.346 
Student work experience
2.99 
3.33 
-3.333 
588 
.000 
-.339 
*Degree of program dir. 
3.82 
4.12 -2.897 
585 .002 -.295 
*Required internship 
4.19 
4.46 
-3.074 
289.882 
.002 
-.269 
Faculty eval procedure 
4.42 
4.21 
-5.410 
589 
.000 
-.210 
*Industry exp. Of faculty 
4.74 
4.61 
2.644 
408.980 
.008 
.126 
Note: * indicates characteristics for which unequal variances were assumed and adjusted values were used. 
Suggested Quality Indicators for ADCAP 
Research question three asked that, if there are differences between the two groups, how could they be 
reconciled to derive a common list of quality indicators. It was determined that the characteristics with overall 
means of 4.0 or higher, indicating that the survey participants believed they were very or extremely important, could 
be considered valid quality indicators for ADCAP. However, some significant differences between educators and 
industry that needed to be reconciled in order to use this criterion. Reviewing the mean importance ratings by each 
group, educators would have included program has an external advisory board (4.33), availability of financial aid 
(4.03), and retention procedures (4.03) in this list. They would not have included public restaurant (3.97) or degree 
of program director (3.82). Chefs would have included opportunities for participation in competitions (4.10), ACF 
accreditation (4.03), and number of demonstration labs (4.01). Based on these differences, the researcher included 
program has an external advisory board and opportunities for participation in competitions in the following list of 20 
suggested quality indicators (Table 3), rather than public restaurant and degree of program director.
 
None of the resource characteristics were included in the list of suggested quality indicators. In this respect, 
the respondents’ opinions appeared similar to those of the accrediting agencies, which have lessened the importance 
of resources, such as libraries and resource centers, as compared to program assessment and outcomes, when 
evaluating programs (McCleeny, 2004). However, this result contrasts with Blumin’s (1988) findings that over 90% 
of community college administrators thought the resource characteristics of number of students and total budget 
were important quality indicators. It also differs from the national ranking systems, such as that of 
U.S. News and 
World Report, 
which use institutional resources to account for 10% of the schools’ overall ranking (Gater, 2002) and 
Gould and Bojanic’s (2002) use of number of students as one of eight ranking factors for hospitality management 
programs.