Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41165322›Full record

ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2025

Deciphering the Language of Assessment in Pharmacology Summative Written Assessments.

Róisín Kelly-Laubscher, Caoimhe C Flaherty, Lea Herzel, Órla P Barry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Editorial: Pharmacology Education Special Issue.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
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

4 authors.

Róisín Kelly-LaubscherDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Western Gateway Building, School of Medicine, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6379-9943
Caoimhe C FlahertyDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Western Gateway Building, School of Medicine, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Lea HerzelDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Western Gateway Building, School of Medicine, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Órla P BarryDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Western Gateway Building, School of Medicine, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6364-3642

Funding

Learning Teaching Assessment Enhancement Fund provided by the National Forum and the Office of the Vice President for Teaching and Learning at University College Cork
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Success in assessments requires that both the knowledge and processing demands of questions are addressed. The focus of students, however, tends to be on knowledge demands oftentimes failing to address adequately or misinterpreting assessment processing demands. While there is a universal list of assessment action verbs used for conveying processing demands, these often take on nuanced meanings within disciplines. To-date there is a paucity of studies investigating pharmacology assessment processing demands. Our study purpose was threefold: (i) identify the most frequent action verbs and collocated words in pharmacology summative written assessments, (ii) determine the meaning(s) lecturers attribute to them, and (iii) reach consensus on their meanings. Using NVivo software, a frequency analysis of action verbs and collocated words embedded in pharmacology summative written assessments was performed on over 200 exam papers (2010-2020), totaling 1,200 questions. An online survey gathered educators' meanings of common assessment action verbs and their collocated words. Seven common assessment action verbs identified were "discuss", "describe", "outline", "include", "explain", "give", and "write", their weighted frequencies differing across programmes and academic years. High frequency collocated words included "the pharmacology of" and "mechanism of action". Survey analysis identified diverse educators' meanings for all except the action verb, "discuss" highlighting the importance of our study. A follow-on focus group defined both action verb and collocated word meanings commonly used in pharmacology assessments. Ultimately, assessment effectiveness must encompass transparency of language, so students are assessed on their knowledge rather than their ability to align with educators' interpretation(s).

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementLanguagePharmacologyHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesWritingaction verbscollocated wordsfocus grouplanguage of assessmentpharmacologysurvey analysis

Identifiers

PMID41165322
PMCPMC12573469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.