American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2024
Transitioning From Points-Based Grading to a Modified Pass/Fail Grading Approach in a Simulated Patient Program.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ashjian Emily J, Genereaux Molly, Thompson Amy N, Ward Kristen, Wells Trisha, Bostwick Jolene R, Vordenberg Sarah E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of transitioning from points-based grading to a modified pass/fail grading approach in a simulated patient (SP) program on first year pharmacy (P1) student performance in a PharmD curriculum.
METHODS: Course-level data from the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 academic years were collected to assess the impact of transitioning to a modified pass/fail grading approach on P1 student performance. During the 2021-2022 academic year, points-based grading was used. In 2022-2023, a modified pass/fail grading approach was implemented: communication assessment used pass/fail grading and clinical assessment used points-based grading; each assessment was worth 50% of the total SP activity grade. Chi-square tests were used to compare the percentage of students who passed each assessment (≥70%) with those who failed.
RESULTS: Across both academic years, students completed 9 formative (18 rubrics) and 6 summative (12 rubrics) SP activities. Each activity included separate communication and clinical assessment rubrics. There were no significant differences in performance on 27 of 30 rubrics. There were two formative SP activities where the percentage of students who passed the communication assessment using pass/fail grading (2022-2023 academic year) was different than points-based grading (2021-2022 academic year). In one fall semester activity, the cohort with the modified pass/fail grading approach had lower pass rates, but the opposite trend was observed in the winter semester.
CONCLUSION: Our program was able to successfully move to a pass/fail approach for communication assessments of SP activities while maintaining points-based grading for clinical assessments in our P1 curriculum with minimal impact on student performance.
METHODS: Course-level data from the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 academic years were collected to assess the impact of transitioning to a modified pass/fail grading approach on P1 student performance. During the 2021-2022 academic year, points-based grading was used. In 2022-2023, a modified pass/fail grading approach was implemented: communication assessment used pass/fail grading and clinical assessment used points-based grading; each assessment was worth 50% of the total SP activity grade. Chi-square tests were used to compare the percentage of students who passed each assessment (≥70%) with those who failed.
RESULTS: Across both academic years, students completed 9 formative (18 rubrics) and 6 summative (12 rubrics) SP activities. Each activity included separate communication and clinical assessment rubrics. There were no significant differences in performance on 27 of 30 rubrics. There were two formative SP activities where the percentage of students who passed the communication assessment using pass/fail grading (2022-2023 academic year) was different than points-based grading (2021-2022 academic year). In one fall semester activity, the cohort with the modified pass/fail grading approach had lower pass rates, but the opposite trend was observed in the winter semester.
CONCLUSION: Our program was able to successfully move to a pass/fail approach for communication assessments of SP activities while maintaining points-based grading for clinical assessments in our P1 curriculum with minimal impact on student performance.