The misconception surrounding the NCCA (National Commission for Certifying Agencies) and its role in the fitness industry needs to be addressed in full. Many believe the NCCA accredits personal trainer certification programs, but this is not accurate. The reality is far different, and these distinctions are crucial for understanding how the fitness industry should handle certification standards.
NCCA (National Commission for Certifying Agencies) does not accredit programs or courses, but instead focuses solely on the certification exams themselves, meaning it evaluates the quality and validity of the assessment used to certify individuals in a particular field, not the educational program leading to that exam.
The fitness industry operates on principles fundamentally different from other fields such as medicine, nursing, automotive repair, respiratory therapy, counseling, emergency response, or crane operation—professions for which the NCCA provides exam oversight. While these fields focus on specific, often technical or illness-related skills, personal training requires a multifaceted understanding of physical, physiological, and psychological elements that cannot be effectively measured through a multiple-choice exam alone.
Being a personal trainer means addressing the physical (sports training, metabolism, stamina, and strength), the physiological (nutrition, digestion, allergies, energy management, sleep, healing, calorie intake, ethnicity, and more), and the psychological (mood, dedication, goals, habits, commitment, and motivation). This holistic approach demands more than just passing a written test; it requires hands-on experience, real-world application, and a deep understanding of biomechanics and individual differences.
The NCCA’s role is limited to accrediting exams—it does not accredit courses or provide oversight of the hands-on, practical aspects of training that are essential to quality education in this field. This creates a significant gap in the certification process. While the NCCA claims to review courses to ensure they meet the qualifications for students to sit for an exam, it does not incorporate critical elements like practical training, biomechanics, or personalized instruction into its accreditation process. The exams are often proctored by third-party organizations that may lack the necessary expertise in biomechanics or practical instruction.
Adding to this, the NCCA prohibits instructors who teach the course from administering the exam or conducting hands-on practical evaluations. This separation undermines the quality of education and fails to ensure that personal trainers are adequately prepared for real-world challenges. Learning proper biomechanics, understanding physical and physiological responses, and applying practical knowledge cannot be achieved through videos, textbooks, or distant oversight alone. These skills require in-person evaluation and guidance, something the NCCA accreditation process neglects.
It is clear that the NCCA falls short of the qualifications needed to accredit personal trainer certification exams effectively. The organization’s lack of emphasis on hands-on training and practical application makes it unsuitable for setting standards in the fitness industry. To clarify, the NCCA does not accredit courses—it only accredits the exams associated with those courses, claiming that the course content qualifies students to take the exam. This is both irresponsible and incomplete, leaving a gap in the industry that fails to uphold the quality and depth of education personal trainers need to excel.
Here’s the truth:
The NCCA’s role is to accredit exams, not certification programs or the courses themselves. Its focus is on ensuring the fairness, objectivity, and reliability of the exam process, but it does not review or validate the quality of the educational programs that lead to these exams. This means that an exam can be accredited by NCCA even if the education leading up to it is of poor quality or not aligned with industry best practices.
The NCCA is often associated with credibility in the fitness industry, but it is important to clarify that it is not a government-recognized accrediting body. The NCCA is a private entity that focuses exclusively on exam accreditation, and there is no federal or state oversight of its standards or processes.
A major flaw with the NCCA accreditation is that it ensures the quality of the exam itself but does not ensure the quality of the courses or certifications offered by institutions that use these exams. There is a widespread assumption that NCCA accreditation reflects the overall quality of a certification, but NCCA does not regulate instructional design or educational content. This creates a false sense of assurance that a certification is comprehensive, when in fact, the educational components may be lacking.
The NCCA does not oversee or require hands-on practical application for the certifications tied to its accredited exams. The exams are strictly theoretical and do not assess real-world fitness skills or in-person instruction. This is a major gap in an industry that relies heavily on practical experience and hands-on learning to ensure the safety and effectiveness of trainers.
The NCCA does not ensure that the curriculum aligns with professional standards or post-secondary education requirements. There is no peer-review process or quality control over the content of the certification programs, meaning that the material taught could be outdated or incomplete. Many NCCA-accredited exams may assess knowledge from a curriculum that has not passed a systematic review by third-party experts.
In an effort to maintain “fair” exams, the NCCA forces a separation between those who develop the educational content and those who create the exams. This separation often results in poorly constructed exams that do not adequately assess the practical and theoretical knowledge necessary for personal trainers (Brookbush Institute). Additionally, this detachment increases the risk that the exams may not reflect the most critical and relevant information trainers need in the field.
Unfortunately, some organizations imply that NCCA accreditation means their entire certification program is of high quality. This can be misleading because NCCA accreditation does not cover the curriculum, content delivery, or practical application. Such claims are disingenuous at best, as they exploit the misconception that NCCA-accredited exams guarantee a high-quality educational experience.
Conclusion:
The belief that NCCA accreditation guarantees the quality of a personal training certification is a misconception. While the NCCA plays a role in standardizing exams, it does not evaluate educational content, does not enforce best practices in teaching, and does not ensure real-world application in the certification process. For fitness professionals and the industry to thrive, alternative accreditation models that emphasize comprehensive education, practical experience, and expert peer review should be considered. Certifications backed by more rigorous, transparent standards would better serve both trainers and their clients.
This critical clarification can help correct the narrative around NCCA accreditation and push for better standards in the fitness industry.
Conclusion: The Value of Learning from Experienced Professionals
In addition to seeking certifications with rigorous accreditation standards, there is immense value in learning directly from professional athletes within the fitness industry. Athletes have been “in the trenches,” experiencing firsthand what it takes to achieve success. They understand the practical applications of training, the nuances of nutrition, and the real-life challenges that fitness professionals face. These individuals can offer unique insights into what should be applied in training, and—just as importantly—what should be avoided to reach fitness and performance goals.
By combining peer-reviewed, practical certifications with the guidance of seasoned athletes, fitness professionals can build a comprehensive knowledge base that goes beyond theoretical exams and isolated classroom learning. This combination ensures trainers not only understand the science of fitness but also have the hands-on, real-world expertise needed to help their clients achieve results safely and effectively.
PROPTA does not support the NCCA
For this reason, PROPTA does not support or align with the NCCA. As a distinguished career college founded and led by professional athletes serving as educators and examiners, PROPTA stands independently as a premier career institute with an unparalleled reputation and over 44 years of success stories. PROPTA recognizes the dedication and hard work that professional athletes undertake to achieve their level of excellence and refuses to be subjected to third-party evaluation by those who lack comprehensive knowledge of the physical and practical biomechanics integral of our courses and teaching standards. PROPTA remains firm in its stance:
No to the NCCA.
Remember that the NCCA only approves exams by a third party and NOT courses or curriculums of any colleges or institute for career purposes.
