Search

Objective. To determine areas of concern, and challenges to implementing and assessing the co-curriculum in accredited Doctor of Pharmacy programs, along with how confident programs are in their ability to meet the co-curriculum requirement as mandated by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). Methods. A survey was administered to all ACPE-accredited pharmacy programs to collect information regarding areas of concern, challenges, and confidence in their ability to meet the co-curriculum requirement. The frequency of responses to items are presented along with comparisons based on characteristics, including institution type, cohort size, most recent ACPE accreditation review, and supporting offices. Results. The most common concerns centered on the documentation and assessment process. The most commonly reported challenges were lack of enthusiasm or buy-in from faculty, staff, and students; lack of a clear definition of co-curriculum; and faculty time and insufficient staff. Overall, programs had a high level of confidence in their ability to meet the requirements for co-curriculum. The only differences found were related to supporting offices and cohort size. Conclusion. The results suggest that having supporting offices may reduce the co-curriculum burden. Similarly, student cohort size may have an impact on the challenges for some programs, particularly those with moderate-sized cohorts reporting challenges related to faculty and staff. Further research is needed to determine how programs address these critical issues, and to explore whether programs report differently on these areas after completing an accreditation review. The study results may be useful to members of the Academy when evaluating co-curriculum., (© 2021 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy.)

Objective. To determine how accredited Doctor of Pharmacy programs implement and evaluate the co-curriculum requirement as mandated by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). Methods. A survey was administered to all ACPE-accredited pharmacy programs to collect information regarding how co-curriculum models were being implemented, including types of activities, structure, learning outcomes, oversight, and assessment. The frequency of responses to items were presented to describe the general features of co-curriculum models. Results. The types of co-curricular activities reported by programs were generally consistent, with the majority of programs categorizing these activities and allowing students to choose which they would engage in. Most respondents reported that the program mapped co-curricular activities to learning outcomes, primarily ACPE Standards 1-4. The structural oversight of the co-curriculum typically included a co-curriculum committee, subcommittee, or task force, and supporting offices. The most common offices/departments involved in the co-curriculum were assessment, student affairs/services, experiential education, and academic/curricular affairs. The most common assessments were reflections, self-assessment surveys, and checklists. Conclusion. In most programs, implementation of the co-curriculum was a joint effort among various individuals, committees, and offices. Given the developing nature of programs, descriptive studies should be repeated to identify how programs develop and enhance co-curriculum models. The study results may be useful to members of the Academy when evaluating the current state of co-curriculum implementation and potential areas for program development., (© 2020 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy.)

Objective. To provide a practical guide to examination item writing, item statistics, and score adjustment for use by pharmacy and other health professions educators. Findings. Each examination item type possesses advantages and disadvantages. Whereas selected response items allow for efficient assessment of student recall and understanding of content, constructed response items appear better suited for assessment of higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy. Although clear criteria have not been established, accepted ranges for item statistics and examination reliability have been identified. Existing literature provides guidance on when instructors should consider revising or removing items from future examinations based on item statistics and review, but limited information is available on performing score adjustments. Summary. Instructors should select item types that align with the intended learning objectives to be measured on the examination. Ideally, an examination will consist of multiple item types to capitalize on the advantages and limit the effects of any disadvantages associated with a specific item format. Score adjustments should be performed judiciously and by considering all available item information. Colleges and schools should consider developing item writing and score adjustment guidelines to promote consistency., (© 2019 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy.)

Objective. To determine and describe the current uses of the Pharmacy Curriculum Outcomes Assessment (PCOA) by US schools and colleges of pharmacy. Methods. Assessment professionals from 135 US schools and colleges of pharmacy were invited to complete a 38-item electronic survey. Survey items were designed to investigate common uses of the PCOA, cut points, and "stakes" assigned to the PCOA, identification of at-risk students, and remediation approaches. Results. The school response rate was 68%. The most common uses of the PCOA included curricular assessment (76%), individual student performance assessment (74%), and cohort performance assessment (71%). The PCOA was most frequently administered to third-year pharmacy (P3) students. The approach for assigning "stakes" to PCOA performance varied among programs depending on the student's professional year in the curriculum. Programs used a variety of approaches to establish the benchmark (or cut point) for PCOA performance. Remediation for at risk students was required by less than 25% of programs. Remediation was most commonly required for P3 students (22%). Conclusion. Survey results indicate wide variability between programs regarding PCOA cut points (benchmarks), stakes, and remediation approaches. In the future, it will be important for pharmacy educators to identify and study best practices for use of PCOA within student assessment and remediation plans.

Objective. To examine the relationship between the Pharmacy Curriculum Outcomes Assessment (PCOA) and the North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) using a large, multi-institutional sample of student scores. Methods. A matched dataset was obtained from the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) consisting of examination scores for the 1,460 students who completed both the PCOA and the NAPLEX between 2012 and 2015 at six schools/colleges of pharmacy (S/COPs). Bivariate correlations were estimated for total and content area scores on both examinations. Students' total NAPLEX scores were predicted using linear regression models containing total and content area scores on PCOA and dummy variables for S/COP and year. Results. Students' PCOA total score and NAPLEX total score were significantly and moderately correlated ( r =0.54). All correlations between PCOA and NAPLEX total and content area scores were significant. and ranged from r =0.22 to 0.56. Regression results showed pharmaceutical and clinical sciences PCOA content scores were significant predictors of NAPLEX total score while basic biomedical sciences and social/behavioral/administrative sciences were not. The PCOA total and content scores accounted for 30%-33% of the variance in total NAPLEX score. Conclusion. Student PCOA and NAPLEX total and content area scores were significantly correlated, which is consistent with the findings of previous research. The somewhat modest proportion of variance in NAPLEX scores accounted for by PCOA scores illustrates the need for use of additional performance measures when evaluating student preparedness for the NAPLEX. This study provides important baseline data that can be used by S/COPs for comparison with their own student data as well as by researchers seeking to conduct additional analyses following recent changes in the PCOA and NAPLEX blueprints.

Objective. To examine the extent of financial and faculty resources dedicated to preparing students for NAPLEX and PCOA examinations, and how these investments compare with NAPLEX pass rates. Methods. A 23-item survey was administered to assessment professionals in U.S. colleges and schools of pharmacy (C/SOPs). Institutions were compared by type, age, and student cohort size. Institutional differences were explored according to the costs and types of NAPLEX and PCOA preparation provided, if any, and mean NAPLEX pass rates. Results. Of 134 C/SOPs that received the survey invitation, 91 responded. Nearly 80% of these respondents reported providing some form of NAPLEX preparation. Significantly higher 2015 mean NAPLEX pass rates were found in public institutions, schools that do not provide NAPLEX prep, and schools spending less than $10,000 annually on NAPLEX prep. Only 18 schools reported providing PCOA preparation. Conclusion. Investment in NAPLEX and PCOA preparation resources vary widely across C/SOPs but may increase in the next few years, due to dropping NAPLEX pass rates and depending upon how PCOA data are used.