The Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Educationʼs (CAPTE) Perspective on the Future of CAPTE

Abstract

The intent of this perspective is inform the Journal of Physical Therapy Education's readers about the current plans that the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE) has for exploring potential changes in its organizational structure and to highlight the rationale for these plans. As most readers are aware, the mission and work of CAPTE has developed considerably since its formation in 1977. lust as the practice of physical therapy has evolved into a more autonomous profession, so has CAPTE matured into a more sovereign agency. The first step in that process came in 1983 when CAPTE was recognized by the US Secretary of Education and the Commission on Postsecondary Accreditation as the sole accrediting agency for physical therapy education in the US. Periodic revisions to CAPTE's mission, goals, and criteria have continued to influence, and hopefully improve, the development of educational curricula and faculty credentials- subsequently helping to produce more qualified physical therapy practitioners. And, although CAPTE enjoys autonomy in its decision-making process, we have maintained a close connection to APTA through our philosophical perspectives and organizational structure. However, given the difference in our missions, strategic plans, and affiliations with external agencies, members of the Commission believe that it is time to consider whether CAPTE should become a completely autonomous agency. First and foremost, we must consider the fact that APTA and CAPTE have very different missions and serve different constituents. Although many APTA members benefit from the services provided by CAPTE, the primary role of accreditation is to serve and protect the public, not APTA membership. And, even though CAPTE may indirectly serve as an advocate for the physical therapy profession, it is not directly involved in any political lobbying. However, CAPTE currently functions as an appointed group within APTA and is classified as a 501(c)(6) organization. According to the descriptions provided by the Internal Revenue Service, organizations with this taxexempt status primarily serve the business interests of its members. This status has no limit on the amount of legislative or political activities in which the organization may engage, but has some limits on the tax exemption for donors. By contrast, CAPTE functions more like a 501(c)(3) organization, which primarily serves a public purpose, engages in very limited legislative activity ( Given the inherent differences in APTA's and CAPTE's missions, there are times when a conflict of interest is likely to occur. For example, the recent analysis of practice conducted by the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy (FSBPT) revealed that PTAs are performing certain clinical skills, such as joint mobilization, that APTA believes should be exclusively performed by PTs. Given CAPTE's long-standing association with APTA, the accreditation criteria have consistently been aligned with APTA policies. Thus, PTA programs are currently cited as noncompliant if they teach PTA students these skills (as opposed to an understanding of these treatment techniques). So, how do these programs best prepare their graduates to pass a !icensure exam that may require knowledge about the application of clinical skills that the program is not allowed to teach? Do CAPTE staff members advocate for changes in accreditation standards to reflect changing practice patterns, or do they uphold the current standards that are consistent with APTA policy? …