Skip to Content

04.02.10.b Annual Review of Clinical Faculty

 Counseling, Leadership, Adult Education & School Psychology Department




1.      The purposes of an annual clinical faculty evaluation are to: 1) provide for self-development by identifying, reinforcing, and sharing the strengths of both faculty as individuals and the department as a whole; 2) extend opportunities for continuous professional development; and 3) identify and strengthen the roles of faculty members within their respective programs, the department and the university. The annual evaluation also provides information that may be used in promotion recommendations, in the awarding of performance and merit raises, and/or in decisions regarding the retention of faculty (PPS 8.09).

2.      The annual departmental evaluation of clinical faculty is the direct source of decisions regarding both the retention of faculty and increases in salary. In evaluating performance, the departmental personnel committee, chair, and college dean will consider the clinical faculty member’s contributions in the context of departmental, college, and institutional needs, as well as the clinical faculty member’s past performance and career path.

3.      Clinical faculty who meet departmental expectations as determined by the annual evaluation will be eligible for reappointment.

4.      Failure to meet departmental expectations will cause the department to consider whether reappointment is warranted. If the department determines that a clinical faculty member is not to be retained, appropriate notice will be given to the clinical faculty member. If the clinical faculty member is to be retained, the chair will provide the clinical faculty member with specific written suggestions for improvement.



1.      Annually, in early January, the Chair will notify all clinical faculty of the required electronic and hard copy materials to be submitted by February 1. The materials necessary are determined by the Personnel Committee (PC) and are noted in Appendix A.

2.      This annual evaluation is in addition to any other procedures and deadlines having to do with the promotion evaluation process (PPS 8.10) and the attendant reappointment process.

3.      All clinical faculty annual evaluation packets will be collected in a central location and PC members will have full access to them for the month of February. PC members will be provided with rating sheets (Appendix B) and rating guides (Appendices C, D, & E) for evaluating each faculty member’s materials. Rating sheets will be tallied initially on or about February 15 for the purposes of chair conferences, but they may be submitted until March 1. Ratings will be averaged and entered into a cumulative spreadsheet for the purpose of input into merit recommendations.

4.      Beginning approximately February 15, the department chair will meet with all clinical faculty members.

5.      By July 15, the chair will write a formal evaluation letter for each clinical faculty member. This letter will be shared with the clinical faculty member who may then write a letter of rebuttal regarding the content of the chair’s letter. Both letters will then be entered into the clinical faculty member’s file.

6.      All clinical faculty members will be reviewed (primarily on their teaching evaluations) by their respective Program Coordinators following each semester. The department chair will review such faculty members annually and report to them a rating of satisfactory or unsatisfactory, with or without suggestions for improvement.



Clinical faculty performance in the CLAS department is evaluated on documentation of effective Teaching (classroom, laboratory, clinical); Professional Status and Activities; and Practice or Practice-relevant Activities. Scholarly/creative activity is not a major expectation of clinical faculty and is therefore not emphasized in the evaluation. Collegial contributions to the University community by the candidates are also important. Collegial faculty members are expected to contribute to the positive functioning of their respective program, department and the university.

Examples of potentially relevant criteria may include (but are not restricted to) evidence of the following:

a)      Excellence in teaching across multiple formats, utilizing quantitative and qualitative measures of performance – including:

                                           i.            Classroom instruction at either the undergraduate or graduate level;

                                           ii.            Directing of masters theses or doctoral dissertations, or membership on thesis or dissertation  committees;

                                          iii.            Supervision of students’ clinical/professional activities

b)      Supervision of program/curriculum development or other department or clinical program activities

c)      Administrative and clinical activities associated with managing campus-based clinics

d)      Continued professional development and professional activities

e)      Involvement in professional activities (e.g., presentations at professional conferences, committee involvement in professional organizations, service as a program reviewer or on a journal editorial review board, grant activity, scholarly writings)

f)        Involvement in professional leadership activities

g)      Published scholarship including theoretical or empirically-based articles, chapters, and books

h)      Recognition outside the university at the local, state, or national levels for contributions to the profession of psychology


1.      Faculty members do not work on a one-year cycle. Three to five years is a more accurate reflection of faculty productivity or the time needed to bring projects to completion. Merit pay determination should reflect the reality of faculty productivity cycles (length of time to complete a book, complete a research project, take a scholarly article to publication, develop and refine a course). Therefore, annual review for the purpose of determining merit pay will evaluate the current year’s productivity based on the current and previous two calendar years (except for faculty members who have been employed for less than two years at Texas State). This policy addresses the imbalance in merit pay distribution from one year to the next that results from the common and unavoidable occurrence that a faculty member has several projects reach fruition during one year and none the next. It also addresses the likelihood that journal articles and books are counted more than once (the year they are accepted and the year they are published).

2.      In all evaluation of faculty performance, both summative and formative, our Department values:

•         teaching and professional activities that contribute to high quality training of students;

•         all faculty work, including that which integrates teaching, professional activities, and practice or practice relevant activities; we recognize that clinical faculty work does not include scholarship;

•         faculty work reflecting their diversity of personal and work histories, academic backgrounds, professional allegiances, and interests; we are committed to faculty assessment that identifies and credits faculty members for the worth of their unique expression of academic work through teaching, professional status, and practice.



1.      High-quality teaching at all instructional levels is an essential criterion for appointment and promotion decisions. Every effort shall be made to recognize and emphasize excellence in teaching. The general test to be applied is that the faculty member is engaged regularly and effectively in high quality teaching. Collaboration with colleagues is viewed as a means of enhancing teaching.

2.      Documentation of Criteria for Teaching. Evidence of effective teaching and student advisement can be established through careful consideration of productivity and quality. Materials to be used in annual evaluations may include the following items: student quantitative and qualitative evaluations; peer observations of teaching performance; published materials on teaching techniques; letters, awards, and other evidence of teaching.

3.      Productivity. Productivity refers to the efficient application of time and energy to the instructional needs of the department and the College. Productivity may be demonstrated by the following examples of documentation for teaching effectiveness:

a.       number and nature of courses taught each semester [Reviewers should recognize that some courses may place a heavier demand on faculty time and effort than others.]

b.      number of completed doctoral dissertations and master’s theses supervised. [Consideration should also be given to the number of doctoral dissertation and master’s thesis committees on which the candidate has served as a member and on the number of seminar papers directed.]

c.       number of student advisees [Appropriate consideration should be given to the faculty member’s expected or assigned contributions to advising, mentoring, recruitment, retention, and timely graduation of students.]



Professional Status and Activities refer to activities that represent clinical faculty’s status among both the university and professional communities. Clinical faculty performance in this domain will be evaluated by assessing the impact of the activities on the profession. In addition to leadership and educational activities, contributions to the scholarly development of the profession are considered relevant to Professional Status and Activities, such as serving as editor, reviewer, consultant, speaker, and panel member. 

Quality. Professional status activities involve working with others so that professional knowledge has an impact on the growth of the profession. The impact of professional status activities on the larger professional as a whole is of critical importance in evaluating quality of professional status activities.

Examples of these types of activities may include:

•         Hold leadership positions in national, state or local professional organizations;

•         Coordinate or chair a major professional conference;

•         Serve as member of examination committee for professional licensure and certification;

•         Consult with government, business, and industry;

•         Provide continuing professional development for practitioners;

•         Publish in scholarly journals;

•         Publish in professional newsletters and/or magazines;

•         Edit professional publications;

•         Present at state, national and international conferences.

Evidence of Professional Status and Activities may include

a)      lists and descriptions of activities;

b)      copies of materials produced;

c)      letters from groups served; 

d)      evidence of any forms of recognition for service;

e)      annual reviews of leadership/service.



Clinical faculty should have a commitment to the University and their professions through participation in practice or practice-relevant activities, such as leadership/service to the university [leadership/service on committees charged by the Texas State Faculty Senate or by an administrator at the Dean level or higher]; leadership/service to the college [service on a committee charged by the College of Education Faculty Advisory Council or by the Dean of the College of Education]; leadership/service to the department [service on a committee charged by the chair of the department]; and leadership/service to the profession or to higher education in general [leadership/service appointments made by officials representing professional organizations, public schools, cities, states, or the nation]. Specific program areas within the department may have differing expectations regarding appropriate service activities.

Clinical faculty members are expected to participate in the conduct of department, college, and university activities; in appropriate professional organizations in their field; and in professional leadership/service to schools, colleges, universities, and other agencies in the community. Evidence of superior practice or practice relevant activity may be established through careful consideration in the areas of productivity and quality. While practice or practice-relevant activity is expected of each faculty member, practice or practice-relevant activity shall not substitute for expectations in teaching or professional status and activity.  Practice or practice relevant expectations of untenured, clinical assistant professors seeking promotion to clinical associate professor will be lower than those for clinical associate professors seeking promotion to clinical full professor.

Productivity. Evidence of a clinical faculty member’s productivity is manifested by the extent of participation on departmental, college, and university committees; in professional organizations at the local, state, or national levels; and in outreach activities related to student settings. The level and frequency and stature of participation will be considered.

Quality/Practice or practice-relevant activity involves working creatively with others so that professional knowledge has an impact on the schools, colleges, professional organizations, community agencies, and other institutions. The impact of practice activities on the group served is of critical importance in evaluating quality of practice.  


Practice or Practice-Relevant Examples

Faculty members engage in practice or practice-relevant activities when they:

a)      serve on departmental, school, and university committees;

b)      assume administrative responsibilities relating to both the academic and support services of their respective program and/or department; these responsibilities should primarily be reserved for associate and full professors;

c)      conduct institutional studies;

d)      sponsor student activities organizations;

e)      conduct organized student-recruiting activities;

f)        serve on an outside program review team or as an external reviewer of faculty credentials;

g)      link university work with community groups and members;

h)      act as a liaison between university researchers and community research participants

Practice or Practice-Relevant Activity Documentation Examples may include

a)      lists and descriptions of activities;

b)      copies of materials produced;

c)      letters from groups served; 

d)      evidence of any forms of recognition for service;

e)      annual reviews of leadership/service.



Because some activity, such as scholarly/creative work, is not a primary role of the clinical faculty member, evidence of such activity should be considered added value. Low levels of scholarly/creative activity should not result in a poor evaluation. Rather, scholarly/creative productivity at any level enhances the overall evaluation.




While these two processes are not necessarily related, successful candidates for consideration of promotion typically have exceeded expectations during annual reviews.

Adopted by CLAS faculty, Jan 26, 2011

Appendix A

Recommendations for Annual Review for the Calendar Year 20XX

Clinical faculty shall submit a portfolio of teaching, professional status and activities, practice or practice-relevant activities, and related credentials. The portfolio will contain, but not be limited to the candidate’s dossier consisting of (1) a statement (not to exceed two pages) on goals, philosophies, strategies, and emphases in carrying out his/her professional responsibilities in the areas of assigned responsibility, as well as the candidate's written analysis of his/her teaching evaluations; (2) curriculum vitae; and (3) evidence of quality of performance in the areas of assigned responsibility including – but not limited to – teaching, professional leadership, program development, and scholarship.

You need not include:


Notes from students

Work samples

Letters of recognition or honors

Conference programs

Grant proposals



Appendix B

CLAS Personnel Committee Clinical Faculty Annual Evaluation 

Year________________        Name_____________________________




Scale for merit evaluation:

4 points: Exemplary

3 points: Exceeds Expectations

2 points: Meets Expectations

1 point: Below Expectations



Meets performance criteria of the department:   ______yes______no


Merit evaluation:                       Score_______


Professional status and activity

Meets performance criteria of the department:   ______yes______no


Merit evaluation:                       Score_______


Practice or practice-relevant activity

Meets performance criteria of the department:   ______yes______no


Merit evaluation:                       Score______