Perceived stress among staff in Saudi Arabian dental colleges before and after an accreditation process: A cross-sectional study

Table 1 Comparison of pre- and post-commission knowledge, n (%)

Question	Pre	Post		McNemer χ2 value	P value
		Agree	Disagree
National academic accreditation enhances University’s status and prestige	Agree	120 (40)	32 (10.67)	29.53	0.1
	Disagree	94 (31.33)	54 (18)
National academic accreditation enhances the colleges status and prestige	Agree	130 (43.33)	20 (6.67)	2.7	0.05a
	Disagree	10 (3.33)	140 (46.67)
National academic accreditation is essential to attract quality national and international faculty	Agree	154 (51.33)	12 (4)	0.57	0.2
	Disagree	8 (2.67)	126 (42)
National academic accreditation is essential to attract quality students to join the program	Agree	154 (51.33)	31 (10.33)	0.45	0.03a
	Disagree	23 (7.67)	92 (30.67)
National academic accreditation increases opportunities for enhancing research and publications in the college	Agree	150 (50)	21 (7)	3.87	0.02a
	Disagree	37 (12.33)	92 (30.67)
National academic accreditation assures program to be more rigorous in meeting international and national standards	Agree	164 (54.67)	23 (7.67)	0.92	0.16
	Disagree	16 (5.33)	97 (32.33)
National academic accreditation supports an environment of collaboration across departments and committees in the college	Agree	139 (46.33)	47 (15.67)	4.87	0.01a
	Disagree	27 (9)	87 (29)
National academic accreditation process helps improve the clinical and lab, and other facilities in the college	Agree	44 (14.67)	21 (7)	54.67	0.47
	Disagree	105 (35)	130 (43.33)
National accreditation alone is sufficient for ensuring a quality program, and international accreditation is not required	Agree	121 (40.33)	78 (26)	28.87	0.12
	Disagree	23 (7.67)	78 (26)
The benefits of national academic accreditation for faculty outweigh the costs and efforts of the accreditation process	Agree	157 (52.33)	26 (8.67)	2.43	0.05a
	Disagree	15 (5)	102 (34)
The benefits of national academic accreditation for administrative staff outweigh the costs and efforts of the accreditation process	Agree	142 (47.33)	32 (10.57)	8.2	0.002a
	Disagree	12 (4)	114 (38)

^aStatistically significant difference.

Table 2 Comparison of pre- and post-commission attitudes, n (%)

Question	Pre	Post		McNemer χ2 value	P value
		High	Low
In your opinion, the time investment in national academic accreditation by faculty was	High	92 (30.67)	57 (19)	5.31	0.01a
	Low	34 (11.33)	117 (39)
In your opinion, the time investment in national academic accreditation by administrators was	High	106 (35.33)	29 (9.67)	13.03	0.01a
	Low	65 (21.67)	100 (33.33)
The resources which the college needed for national academic accreditation	High	70 (23.33)	79 (26.33)	0.09	0.3
	Low	84 (28)	67 (22.33)
The overall impact of the accreditation process on faculty stress level	High	112 (37.33)	44 (14.67)	0.19	0.3
	Low	39 (13)	105 (35)
What was your level of involvement in the national academic accreditation process	High	58 (19.33)	93 (31)	3.9	0.02a
	Low	67 (22.33)	82 (27.33)
During your participation in the accreditation process, your stress level was	High	134 (44.67)	25 (8.33)	6.125	0.05a
	Low	47 (15.67)	94 (31.33)

^aStatistically significant difference.

Table 3 Comparison of perceived stress regarding the commission, n (%)

Question	Pre	Post		McNemer χ2 value	P value
		Agree	Disagree
Overall, the national academic accreditation process (online and visit) was less rigorous and stressful than expected	Agree	90 (30)	52 (17.33)	3.5	0.03a
	Disagree	74 (24.67)	84 (28)
You noticed high-stress levels in faculty directly involved in the accreditation process	Agree	113 (37.67)	72 (24)	67.12	0.05a
	Disagree	1 (0.33)	114 (38)
You felt mentally and physically relieved after the accreditation process ended	Agree	149 (49.67)	91 (30.33)	86.09	0.05a
	Disagree	1 (0.33)	59 (19.67)

^aStatistically significant difference.