ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2025
Deciphering the Language of Assessment in Pharmacology Summative Written Assessments.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Editorial: Pharmacology Education Special Issue.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Article
- Deciphering the Language of Assessment in Pharmacology Summative Written Assessments.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.