ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2021
Evaluation of the Potential of National Sharing of a Unified Progress Test Among Colleges of Pharmacy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of progress test as longitudinal assessment in Saudi Arabia.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the expansion in pharmacy education in Saudi Arabia, there is a pressing need to maintain quality assurance in pharmacy programs using several tools. The progress test is a formative assessment tool that can serve to provide information to all stakeholders. This study evaluated the results of a unified progress test that was shared among 15 colleges of pharmacy.
methodsThe progress test was composed of 100 MCQs where 30% of which cover basic pharmaceutical sciences and 70% cover pharmacy practice. The questions were collected from all the 15 colleges of pharmacy participated in the test. The test was administered online to all undergraduate students in the professional programs of these colleges.
resultsThe overall attendance rate was 80% from the total number of students enrolled in the participating colleges. Mean scores of students in basic pharmaceutical sciences were relatively higher than in pharmacy practice. The assessment results of the students in the unified program learning outcomes among colleges were higher in the domains of knowledge and skills compared to competence domain. There was a significant increment in the mean scores of the students as they progress through the years of the professional program. No correlation was found between the mean scores in the test and the cumulative grade point average (cGPA) of all students regardless of their level.
conclusionThe results indicated growth and maintenance of the gained knowledge and skills by the students as they progress through the years of the professional program with consistency in the results among the participating colleges. Sharing a unified test was effective as a valuable tool for the colleges of pharmacy for the purposes of benchmarking and improving the curricula. In addition, it could serve to evaluate learning of students and harmonize knowledge and skills gained by students at different institutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.