Date: December 2005
*On November 15th, 2005 NFPT-CPT earned the gold standard National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) Accreditation.
The National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA), recently announced its position on possible re-testing of Certified Professionals as it relates to the fitness professional possessing an "Accredited" credential (to include NFPT-CPT).
NFPT is pleased to announce that as a current NFPT Fitness Professional in good standing having previously passed the NFPT-CPT certification exam, your credential will be grandfathered in and you do indeed possess an "Accredited" Personal Trainer Certification credential. This is of huge significance as NFPT Fitness Professionals seeking employment in clubs recognizing the IHRSA recommendation will be recognized as one of the few to have a compliant credential for employment. That credential being the NFPT-CPT.
NFPT elects to remain neutral concerning the proposed national boards at this time.
Where does NFPT's position on proposed national boards leave its fitness professionals?
As we understand it, sitting for a national board exam by the fitness professional holding an accredited Certified Personal Trainer (CPT) credential, would be redundant, as the accredited CPT assessment instrument (exam) is created and validated similarly to the national boards' exam as will be attested to below. After thorough investigation the existing NCCA standards have been clearly identified by undisputed leaders in fitness education and credentialing as being the gold standard both inside and outside our industry. NCCA has the governing experience, and recognition of the entire allied health community in standardizing credentialing organizations that is above reproach while a national board would be just evolving as a new credentialing entity with a long road ahead in building credibility and earning peer respect. The national boards and NCCA are competing "standardization" alternatives and are dividing certifiers.
Some presume that trainers will be excited to take an additional exam for a credential from a national board that is not required. Might many already certified trainers consider it just another redundant exam they are being convinced to take at great additional expense? Is successfully taking one validated certification exam not enough to measure competence? With this said, shouldn't it be incumbent upon certifiers to ALL individually hold themselves accountable and offer better certification programs through established NCCA accreditation and exam validation? Would disinterest in taking an additional national board exam make one less of a fitness professional? This speculation is not intended to diminish a national board initiative, simply to provide insight and possible outcomes.
With IHRSA's tremendous reach and influence coupled with NCCA's longstanding credibility, fitness trainer employers across the nation will undoubtedly continue to recognize the growing number of benefits associated with seeking out and staffing their facilities with fitness professionals who are certified by NCCA accredited certification organizations.
Our NFPT Officers, Board of Directors, Board of Education, and Certification Council are in complete agreement and clearly recognize NFPT-CPT NCCA accreditation status as being compliant with the ONLY industry-wide respected and time-tested approach to standardization. Upon thorough review of the below information we trust you will realize that NFPT has YOUR best interests in mind by taking this position. We have already elevated the credibility of the NFPT-CPT credential by achieving the highest existing distinction of being NCCA accredited.
Why accreditation?
Accreditation of certification organizations is a topic of much discussion in the fitness industry which has its roots in the recommendation from the International Health, Racquet and Sports club Association (IHRSA), Board of Directors to its membership on qualifications for personal trainers.
The IHRSA Board's Amended Resolution:
"Whereas, given the increasing importance of personal training in health, fitness and sports clubs, IHRSA recommends that, beginning January 1, 2006, member clubs hire personal trainers holding at least one current certification from a certifying organization/agency that has begun third-party accreditation of its certification procedures and protocols from an independent, experienced, and nationally recognized accrediting body.
Furthermore, given the twenty-six year history of the National Organization for Competency Assurance (NOCA) as an organization dedicated to establishing quality standards for certifying agencies, IHRSA has identified the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA), the accreditation body of NOCA, as being an acceptable accrediting organization.
IHRSA will recognize other, equivalent accrediting organizations contingent upon their status as an established accreditation body recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation and/or the United States Department of Education for the purposes of providing independent, third-party accreditation."
NCCA and reduced rate health club liability insurance:
This is one of several examples reflecting NCCA's reputation, recognition and experience in governance over credentialing (certification) organizations. "BOSTON - October 31, 2005 - The International Health, Racquet & Sportsclub Association (IHRSA) has announced a general liability insurance premium credit for all health and fitness clubs that employ personal trainers who are certified by organizations that have been accredited by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA), which is the accreditation body of the National Organization for Competency Assurance (NOCA). The NCCA accreditation serves as a benchmark for how organizations should conduct their certification activities.
The insurer, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, is providing the credit based on the percentage of NCCA accredited certified personal trainers on site. All clubs are eligible to earn up to a 10 percent reduction on their rates depending on the individual state schedule rating plan. Those clubs with less than 50 percent accredited trainers on staff are not eligible for the discount." Depending upon the size of the health club(s) organization, this could present a substantial reduction in operating costs and yet another motivating factor in choosing to staff facilities with fitness trainers holding an accredited certification.
Are there other accrediting organizations that are "equivalent" to NCCA?
The only other organization for possible consideration as a credible accreditation organization for certifying agencies is ANSI based on their long history of setting well-recognized and widely accepted industrial and workplace safety and quality standards. No other accreditation stated by a certifier is recognized as being equivalent to NCCA by IHRSA at this time.
Accreditation and "skill-sets":
Differing "skill-sets" are possessed by those fitness professional graduates of differing NCCA accredited certifying bodies. Skill sets are grounded not in accreditation or in competency assessments (exams), but in education curriculum differences. Through the overwhelmingly similar independent survey-based NCCA exam validation process requirement, the exams developed for the specific "scope of practice" of certified personal trainer (CPT), are overwhelmingly similar; hence, the resulting NCCA standardization of trainer competence measurement. As for additional unique "skill-sets" being taught by the separate education side of accredited certifiers differing from one accredited certification organization to another, this is as it should be. The offering of different skill-sets is appropriate and necessary if fitness professionals are to broaden their individual knowledge, skills and abilities. It is for this purpose that fitness professionals are encouraged to pursue multiple certifications, specialties and continuing education programs.
Accreditation and "mail-in-exams":
The Mail-in-exam model does not meet NCCA accreditation standards for accountability.
Similarities between accreditation and proposed national boards:
It is argued by many there would be no competing similarities between a national board and the accreditation of certification organizations. This appears to be inaccurate when making a comparison. It is a common yet understandable misconception that accreditation has to do only with certifiers' policies, procedures, accountability, and exam delivery protocols. In reality, the very foundation of accreditation is based in exam validation through required industry surveys and the establishing of industry dictated exam criteria relating to a "scope of practice" (job analysis). This exam validation must be performed by a completely neutral and unbiased Psychometric company such as Schroeder Measurement Technologies (SMT), Thomson-Prometric or a 3rd party Psychometrician. In addition to the above discussed accreditation exam validation requirements, accreditation proves an organization's willingness to be held voluntarily accountable to a 3rd party whose purpose is to protect the candidate and the public from the certifier by requiring strict policies, procedures, accountability, proof of financial stability, and exam delivery protocols that ensure their graduates have earned the credential.
It appears that many select certifiers, instead of holding themselves accountable to the now identified and expectedly rigorous independent accreditation processes, seem more willing to act in an exam-prep role to a newly deployed national board exam process. A possible explanation as to why there are so many certification organizations in our industry and so few in others may in part be because most other vocational credentialing organizations are required to obtain 3rd party accreditation which is equally rigorous.
It is our observation that those deploying the national boards are following the above very similar assessment validation model as NCCA accredited certification organizations are independently. Hence, similarities obviously exist between NCCA accreditation and the national boards. Those presenting the national boards have stated publicly their disinterest in pursuing third party accreditation. As a result, the national boards may lack an element of transparency and accountability that would otherwise come with their NCCA accreditation. Once again, credentialing organizations large or small, old or new, all have the same opportunity to independently improve their programs through accreditation in a sincere effort to further legitimize their credentialing function consequently resulting in the development of acceptable protocols and a "legally defensible" exam, i.e. a process that proves that the graduate has earned the credential.
About the term "certification":
In the fitness industry the term "certification" has been incorrectly applied to many continuing education and specialty courses based on the definition of "certification" which is... "The issue of a formal statement confirming the results of an evaluation, and that the evaluation criteria used were correctly applied." The very definition of certification suggests assessment validation, proctoring protocols, compliance with proper policies and procedures; in short, accreditation. This would beg the question, if a certification is not accredited, or does not proctor a validated assessment, can it accurately be considered a certification? In many fields 3rd party accreditation is required of credentialing bodies.
Most courses provide either foundational education or continuing education content. Generally, organizations that offer several "certifications" in various disciplines should more accurately title them "Specialty" programs, as the "scopes of practice" of these wrongfully labeled "certifications" clearly speak to the assumption that the candidate already possesses a legitimate "CPT credential" before practicing in a "specialized" area. Just because a course is a foundational education or continuing education course does not make it less valuable to the fitness professional than a certification, merely that a "certificate of completion" or "specialty certificate" would be a more appropriate designation.
Licensure unlikely in the fitness industry:
The call for licensure is typically driven by two factors: A. Failure of an industry to provide for significant self-regulation. B. There is a significant risk to public health that requires government intervention.
- The presence of the NCCA accreditation standards in our industry establishes that acceptable standards exist hence reduced need for legislation or board exams. The involvement in NCCA among leading certifiers will act to overwhelmingly prove self-regulation through already respected and legitimizing independent NCCA accreditation.
- In an open panel discussion on accreditation & certification, held at the November 4th, 2005 Club Industry Event, Mr. Ken Reinig, Owner & President of Association Insurance Group, stated clearly that contrary to popular belief, there are not a significant number of health club trainer-related injury suits, hardly enough to warrant government concern or regulation.
Mr. Reinig goes on to say, "There will be unintended consequences associated with both national boards or licensing. From a liability standpoint, we see no change in exposure that national boards bring to the table."
How would licensure be enacted:
The following is likely the most convincing proof of NCCA's legitimacy in governance and why informed professionals in all of the allied health fields to include personal training, embrace NCCA. Interestingly, the determination that licensure is required in an industry is made through a standard legislative process referred to as a "Sunrise Review" in part determining if there are any existing recognized certification standards in the particular field. Under normal conditions in an allied health field, to include personal training, an NCCA accredited organization or organizations would likely be identified by a legislator as meeting these standards. This would prevent unwanted licensure.
Licensure would not benefit the fitness professional:
Licensure does not necessarily ensure that the fitness professional will see an increase in compensation or professional recognition. In fact, there may be unintended consequences of proactively pursuing licensure. Some of the unintended consequences of pro-actively pursuing licensure could include:
- A limitation of the scope of practice via legislation by well-meaning legislators influenced by lobbyists from various interested parties.
- Additional and unnecessary expenses associated with licensure.
- Alerting the public and the government to a purported "risk" of working with qualified fitness professionals that does not exist.
Industry does not need a national board exam for fitness professionals:
The need for the deployment of a national board exam is based in part on the false assumption that there are no credible national standards for fitness certification today and that a national board exam is the answer to standardization. However, this appears to be incorrect. While a national board would currently be in its infancy, the NCCA accreditation of certifying organizations is, and always has been, the recognized standard for professional credentialing and licensing exam organizations in the allied healthcare and other skilled professional fields. Debating and arguing this distinction has become quite popular but must ultimately give way to the acceptance of this fact. For these reasons leaders in certification are working hard to gain NCCA accreditation so their fitness professionals are more respected and can more immediately start building relationships with other allied health professionals. For the national boards to pursue NCCA accreditation would be a step in the right direction. However, it would still take years for the national boards to evolve to the level of recognition presently commanded by the NCCA..
*For clarifications or permissions to print in whole or in part this document contact 800.SAY.NFPT
*Some factual portions of this statement included with permission from American Council on Exercise (ACE).
Per request, below is an internet link to the American Council on Exercise (ACE) position statement on these issues.
http://www.acefitness.org/media/faq_accreditation.aspx
