A questionnaire study investigating undergraduate pharmacy students’ opinions on assessment methods and an integrated five-year pharmacy degree.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This research aimed to establish pharmacy students’ views on assessment and an integrated five-year degree. Methods: Following ethical approval and piloting, final year Queen’s University Belfast (QUB) pharmacy students (n=119) were invited (at a compulsory class) to complete a paper-based questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and non- parametric tests were done; p <0.05 was set as significant a priori . Results: Response rate was 99.2% (118/119). Most [90.7% (107/118)] considered formative assessment improved academic performance. Many [77.1% (91/118)] thought continuous assessments were fairer when judging academic performance than one-off examinations. Proprietary dispensing examination was the top ranked method; objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) were the least preferred. An integrated five-year degree was welcomed by 60.2% (71/118) due to greater support, standardisation and enhanced integration of learning. Discussion: This is useful for stakeholders and course developers. These students appear to appreciate integration and assessments that emulate real-life practice but work is required to ensure OSCEs are viewed favourably.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".