Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27168611›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of pharmaceutical education2015

A Five-Year Evaluation of Examination Structure in a Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy Course.

Anne Schullo-Feulner, Claire Kolar, Kristin K Janke

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of pharmaceutical education, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Anne Schullo-FeulnerUniversity of Minnesota College of Pharmacy, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Claire KolarUniversity of Minnesota College of Pharmacy, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Kristin K JankeUniversity of Minnesota College of Pharmacy, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective. To evaluate the composition and effectiveness as an assessment tool of a criterion-referenced examination comprised of clinical cases tied to practice decisions, to examine the effect of varying audience response system (ARS) questions on student examination preparation, and to articulate guidelines for structuring examinations to maximize evaluation of student learning. Design. Multiple-choice items developed over 5 years were evaluated using Bloom's Taxonomy classification, point biserial correlation, item difficulty, and grade distribution. In addition, examination items were classified into categories based on similarity to items used in ARS preparation. Assessment. As the number of items directly tied to clinical practice rose, Bloom's Taxonomy level and item difficulty also rose. In examination years where Bloom's levels were high but preparation was minimal, average grade distribution was lower compared with years in which student preparation was higher. Conclusion. Criterion-referenced examinations can benefit from systematic evaluation of their composition and effectiveness as assessment tools. Calculated design and delivery of classroom preparation is an asset in improving examination performance on rigorous, practice-relevant examinations.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDrug TherapyEducation, PharmacyProblem-Based LearningChoice BehaviorEducational MeasurementHumansTime FactorsARSassessmentcase-based learningexaminationsmultiple-choice questions

Identifiers

PMID27168611
PMCPMC4812786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.