[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-592154-105":59,"doc-detail-592154-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","ranking-of-doctoral-programs-of-health-education-methodological-revisions-and-results","Ranking of Doctoral Programs of Health Education - Methodological Revisions and Results","","A study replicates and extends prior research ranking doctoral programs in health education, using weighted variables determined by scholars and field leaders. The variable set includes publications, journal editorships, external research funding, student activity, student/faculty ratio, mentoring and placement, and student support. Twenty-four of 39 programs participated. Most programs scored highly across ranked variables, with correlation analyses providing further insights into relationships between faculty and student measures. Implications for administrators, faculty, students, and the discipline are discussed.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/ranking-of-doctoral-programs-of-health-education-methodological-revisions-and-results/592154/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/ranking-of-doctoral-programs-of-health-education-methodological-revisions-and-results/592154.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Grenda","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-04","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What was the purpose of the study ranking doctoral programs in health education?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"To replicate an earlier ranking study and improve its methods by incorporating professional comments from the health education field.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Which variables were used to measure and rank doctoral programs?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The study weighted variables covering faculty and student measures, including publications, journal editorships, external funding, student activity, student/faculty ratio, mentoring and placement, and student support.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How many doctoral programs participated, and what did the ranking results show?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Twenty-four of 39 programs participated. Seventeen programs had at least one variable in the top 10, and all but one program had at least two variables in the top 20.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},592154,1792171755,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":44,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},7971474921005,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","Continuing Education  \nRanking of Doctoral Programs of Health Education: Methodological Revisions and Results  \nJ. Don Chaney, James M. Eddy, and Thomas W. O’Rourke  \nABSTRACT  \nThe purpose of this study was to replicate the Notaro, O’Rourke, and Eddy study to rank doctoral programs in health education, incorporating comments from professionals in health education to enhance the ranking study methods. This study used a multiple set of variables weighted by scholars and leaders in the field of health education. These variables included articles published; journal editorships; external funding of research; student activity; student/faculty ratio; mentoring and placement of doctoral students; and student support. Twenty-four of the 39 doctoral programs in health education participated in this study. Seventeen programs had at least 1 variable ranked in the top 10, and all but 1 program had at least 2 variables ranked in the top 20. Correlation analysis of the 7 variables provided additional insights. As in the Notaro, O’Rourke, and Eddy study, the faculty variables were not statistically significantly related to the student variables. Consistent with the literature, programs with a larger number of faculty tended to have a higher ranking than programs with a smaller number of faculty. Implications of the ranking for administrators, faculty, students, and the health education profession are discussed.  \nRanking of institutions and degree programs in higher education is commonplace, and rankings exist for a number of disciplines or fields of academic study (Beilock & Polopolus, 1988; Medoff, 1996; Notaro, O’Rourke, & Eddy, 2000; Richards & Taylor, 1995; Tauer & Tauer, 1984; Watson, Edwards, & Barker, 1989; West & Rhee, 1995). The abundance of ranking studies in the literature from various fields of study as well as the growing popularity of newsstand publications ranking universities validates the demand and importance for ranking studies of academic institutions and programs. Academic programs and universities have used ranking studies for numerous reasons including but not limited to  \nprogram progress toward stated goals (Scott & Mitias, 1996), enhancing funding opportunities (Miller, Tien, & Peebler, 1996), and student recruitment (Argetsinger, 2002) . This study replicates and builds on the Notaro and colleagues (2000) study to rank doctoral programs in health education, incorporating comments from ranking literature and the health education field to enhance the ranking study methods.  \nBACKGROUND OF THE FIRST RANKING STUDY IN HEALTH EDUCATION  \nThe Notaro and colleagues (2000) study used the following eight variables to rank programs: publications and citations appearing in journals of health education;  \neditorships of journals of health education; external funding for research and contracts; scholarly activity of doctoral students; student/faculty ratio; faculty mentoring and placement of doctoral students after  \nJ. Don Chaney, PhD, is senior administrative coordinator in the Department of Health and Kinesiology at Texas A&M University, MS 4243, College Station, Texas 77843-4243; E[mail: dchaney@hlkn.tamu.edu. James M. Eddy](mail: dchaney@hlkn.tamu.edu. James M. Eddy), DEd, is professor and chair of the Division of Health and Safety at Texas A&M University. Thomas W. O’Rourke, PhD, MPH, CHES, is with the Department of Community Health atthe University of Illinois.  \nJ. Don Chaney, James M. Eddy, and Thomas W. O’Rourke  \ngraduation; and student support including assistantships for teaching and research. Scholars and leaders in the field of health education, along with the department heads of doctoral programs of health education, weighted the set of variables in the study. Refer to this study for methodological details.  \nAfter the publication of the first ranking study (Notaro et al., 2000), comments were offered by leading health educators in the field to improve the ranking study methods (Donahue, Eddy, & O’Rourke, 2001; ","cbCail38kAokRz2P","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCail38kAokRz2P","pdf",538011,"English","# Abstract\n# Background of the First Ranking Study in Health Education\n# Methods\n## Step 1—Protocol to Revise Notaro and Colleagues’ Methods","[{\"question\":\"What was the purpose of the study ranking doctoral programs in health education?\",\"answer\":\"To replicate an earlier ranking study and improve its methods by incorporating professional comments from the health education field.\"},{\"question\":\"Which variables were used to measure and rank doctoral programs?\",\"answer\":\"The study weighted variables covering faculty and student measures, including publications, journal editorships, external funding, student activity, student/faculty ratio, mentoring and placement, and student support.\"},{\"question\":\"How many doctoral programs participated, and what did the ranking results show?\",\"answer\":\"Twenty-four of 39 programs participated. Seventeen programs had at least one variable in the top 10, and all but one program had at least two variables in the top 20.\"}]","Ranking of Doctoral Programs of Health Education - Methodological Revisions and Results | PDF",1792073970,23]