Comparison of Two Methods of Needs Assessment in Continuing Pharmacy Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying educational needs is recognized as an important part of planning continuing education programs. There are a variety of ways of assessing educational needs. In Pharmacy, needs assessment methods have ranged from those which are relatively subjective (i.e., pharmacists' perceived needs and planners' intuitive feelings) to those which are relatively objective (i.e., knowledge-based or test-derived needs). A more complete understanding of the relative worth of various methods used to assess educational needs is required if continuing pharmacy education (C.P.E.) programs are to be focused on the real problems of potential learners.\n\nThe main purpose of the present study was to compare two methods of needs assessments in continuing pharmacy education. The Canadian Consensus on Asthma Management Guidelines were used as the framework to develop two needs assessment instruments. Perceived needs assessment, or " what pharmacists think they need to learn", was undertaken using a questionnaire which asked pharmacists to rate their degree of educational needs on a five-point Likert scale where 1=low need and 5 =high need. Knowledge-based needs were assessed by means of an examination containing 39 questions to measure the level of knowledge of the same pharmacists regarding care of asthma patients, prior to their participation in a C.P.E. program on asthma. Participants' learning was assessed after the C.P.E. program by the administration of a post-test containing 21 of the pre-test exam questions.\n\nA total of 113 pharmacists who attended the C.P.E. program in either Regina or Saskatoon, Saskatchewan in May 1996, participated in this study. Data analysis indicated there were no significant correlations between perceived needs and knowledge-based needs among the pharmacists. When various subgroups of pharmacists were compared, there were no significant differences found among groups in the areas of perceived needs and post-test outcomes. However, several groups of pharmacists differed significantly in their knowledge-based needs (i.e., pre-test results). Variables which showed such differences included: gender, year of graduation, employment status, employment position, time spent in management activities, and family history of asthma. After further factor analysis, no correlations were found between overall perceived needs and knowledge-based needs. However, the factor analysis articulated significant differences between perceived needs and knowledge-based needs in the medication domain. Factor analysis also determined that certain subgroups of pharmacists differed in knowledge-based needs in the domains of pathophysiology and medication.\n\nEffectiveness of the C.P.E. program planned based on the intuitive feelings of the planners was assessed by comparing scores of paired pre-test and post-test items. Significant positive changes in learning were found on the post-test. A simple tabulation of data also showed an inclination that when pharmacists were aware of their own needs, effective learning took place.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".