{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023839931885908897, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006385696040868455, 'mean_word_length': 4.979643765903308, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 2, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Approaches to CPD Measurement Research Project

The Professional Associations Research Network (PARN) has been commissioned by the International Accounting Education Standards Board (IAESB) of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) to conduct research into, and report on, the various approaches available for themeasurement of Continuing Professional Development (CPD). This research comes at a time when many organizations are making the move from input-based to output-based CPD schemes. In the past, input-based schemes have provided a simple, cost effective, and easily quantifiable method of measuring the amount of CPD carried out by individuals. An input-based CPD scheme typically involves counting the number of hours spent doing an activity, or the number of points or credits accrued corresponding to attendance at CPD events. Individuals usually have to build up a certain total of hours or points per year or over a certain period, in order to satisfy the CPD criteria of their organization. The problem with measuring CPD in this way, as many organizations are currently realising, is that it does not indicate how much learning, if any, has taken place, or whether the CPD has had any impact on practice or contributed to the professionalism of the individual concerned. Input-based systems measure time spent doing a CPD activity, not how effective that activity has actually been. In order to measure the extent to which CPD has been of value, CPD should be measured by outputs: evidence of the impact of CPD on personal, professional (and possibly organizational) development. This can lead to a more meaningful measurement of CPD, but it is far less simple and less easily quantifiable than an input-based approach. There are serious practical drawbacks to measuring CPD on the basis of outputs, not least the time and resources required. It is also inherently difficult to measure soft skills and reflection accurately, and to identify whether desired standards have been met. It is far easier to say an individual has completed 30 h of CPD as a requirement than it is to say that the depth of his/her reflection met the required standards, or even that the material of the CPD activity is being utilized sufficiently in practice. Accounting Education: an international journal Vol. 16, No. 4, 431–432, December 2007