Evaluating standards: A criteria-based comparison of NAAC accreditation performance in leading health science universities

Purpose: The aim of this study was to inspect the criterion-wise performance of 15 universities in Health Sciences in relation to the NAAC accreditation and to assess the full scores obtained for various evaluation criteria of the same. Methodology: Data for the study were collected through NAAC portal Self Study Reports using publicly available information focused on universities with A+ and A++ accreditation. A quantitative method was used to perform a performance evaluation of seven core criteria on: Curricular Aspects (C1), Teaching-Learning and Evaluation (C2), Research, Innovations and Extension (C3), Infrastructure and Learning Resources (C4), Student Support and Progression (C5), Governance, Leadership and Management (C6), and Institutional Values and Best Practices (C7). The analysis considered data collected up to September 2023. Findings: The analysis revealed average scores ranging from 3.09 (C3) to 3.81 (C7). Notably, Research, Innovations, and Extension (C3) and Student Support and Progression (C5) emerged as significant differentiators; universities with lower scores in these areas, such as SDUAHE, tended to have lower overall NAAC grades. On the contrary, institutions excelling in governance (C6) and in institutional values (C7) fetched higher final grades. Specific trends included superior performance in curricular aspects by SIMTS and MGM, and strong infrastructure and governance indicators for SV. Implications: The study emphasizes the need for targeted enhancements to research capacity, faculty development, and student support systems. These insights provide significant direction for policymakers and institutional leaders seeking to improve academic quality and administrative performance, ultimately hoping to reach higher accreditation criteria.