In occupational therapy (OT), there is a push to encourage the entry-level doctorate (eOTD) over the master's of OT (MOT), without having identified which degree develops therapists who can best meet the needs of clients, while providing the fewest negative consequences for stakeholders. This collective case study assessed whether there are differences between OTs with MOT and with eOTD. Each supervisor's experiences with the two degree groups represented a separate case, then all were collectively considered. The central research question was whether OT supervisors, who have observational knowledge of clinical performance, perceived differences between MOTs and eOTDs in factors that impact the stakeholders of OT services, as identified using Freeman's stakeholder theory. Ten supervisors who geographically represented the five eOTD programs and diverse areas of OT practice were selected for initial interviews, with four others added to achieve saturation. Fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted to begin to identify perceived similarities and differences between OTs with the different degrees. These data were inductively coded and then analyzed using a thematic analysis procedure. The results of this small, exploratory study indicate that eOTDs do not have higher skills and abilities; desire higher compensation, but do not receive it; sometimes bring attitudes of superiority; are not more respected because of their degree; and are negatively affected by higher debt load. Positive social change implications stemming from this study suggest that stakeholder theory can be used to guide policy discussions in professional healthcare associations and that policy makers in the profession of OT should exercise caution in adopting the eOTD as the required entry-level degree until further evidence on the efficacy of the eOTD degree is clear.

This study conducted at the University of Central Florida was of two-fold importance. First, information gathered via this study has served to continually improve the rigor and relevancy of the curriculum and program requirements to issues in education. Second, the research findings from this study served to move forward the national and increasingly international efforts to improve the Ed. D. and other professional practice doctorate programs. The review of literature was organized to present an introduction for the conceptual framework of the efforts to distinguish between the Ph. D. and Ed. D. and strengthen the education doctorate overall. The review presented discussions on the history of the doctorate, history and reform models for the professional doctorate, history of the education doctorate, the Ed. D. versus the Ph. D., differentiation of the education doctorates, and the future of the education doctorate. This study was conducted in the University of Central Florida’s Executive Ed. D. in Educational Leadership program, and employed a mixed methods approach. A series of four surveys were developed to gather both quantitative perception rating responses on a Likert scale of either one to four or one to five, as well as qualitative or open responses to enhance context. Means and standard deviations were analyzed to determine perception ratings, and one-way analyses of variance were conducted to determine differences in perceptions between cohorts and over time. This research illustrated that the perceptions of students in the Executive Ed. D. in Educational Leadership program were positive. Student respondents indicated that their reasons for applying to the program are reflected in the program design, the program is aligned well with iii the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate’s (CPED) Working Principles, and the program was meeting their needs at defined points in the program of study. Implications for practice include using admission and demographic information to inform instructional and advising processes, continuing to gather student perception ratings and open responses to keep the Executive Ed. D. in Educational Leadership at the University of Central Florida aligned with the CPED Working Principles and all programs with the students’ needs, and following up with graduates to gather perceptions on the perceived impact of their study. Recommendations for further research include continuing this study in a longitudinal format to gather perceptions and conduct tests for changes in perceptions over time prior to entering the program, at different points throughout the program, and after completing the program. Also, continuing to gather data on the variable of persistence, to determine relationships between whether or not a student remains enrolled in the program and predictor variables including GRE score, undergraduate GPA, and professional position. Similarly, gathering measurements of program viability including graduation rates and time to degree completion to compare with those measurements on program prior to being redesigned as well as evaluating relationships between admission requirements and time to degree completion and graduation rates.