The impact of summative, formative or programmatic assessment on the Dutch National Pharmacotherapy assessment: A retrospective multicentre study

IF 4.2 3区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY European journal of pharmacology Pub Date : 2025-01-10 DOI:10.1016/j.ejphar.2025.177267
Erik M. Donker , Floor van Rosse , Ben J.A. Janssen , Wilma Knol , Glenn Dumont , Jeroen van Smeden , Roya Atiqi , Marleen Hessel , Milan C. Richir , Michiel A. van Agtmael , Cornelis Kramers , Jelle Tichelaar , Education committee of the Dutch Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmacy
{"title":"The impact of summative, formative or programmatic assessment on the Dutch National Pharmacotherapy assessment: A retrospective multicentre study","authors":"Erik M. Donker ,&nbsp;Floor van Rosse ,&nbsp;Ben J.A. Janssen ,&nbsp;Wilma Knol ,&nbsp;Glenn Dumont ,&nbsp;Jeroen van Smeden ,&nbsp;Roya Atiqi ,&nbsp;Marleen Hessel ,&nbsp;Milan C. Richir ,&nbsp;Michiel A. van Agtmael ,&nbsp;Cornelis Kramers ,&nbsp;Jelle Tichelaar ,&nbsp;Education committee of the Dutch Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmacy","doi":"10.1016/j.ejphar.2025.177267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The Dutch National Pharmacotherapy Assessment (DNPA), which focuses on assessing medication safety and essential drug knowledge, was introduced to improve clinical pharmacology and therapeutics education in the Netherlands. This study investigated how the performance of final-year medical students on the DPNA was affected by the assessment programme (traditional with summative or formative assessment, and programmatic assessment).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This multicentre retrospective longitudinal observation study (2019–2023) involved final-year medical students from four medical schools in the Netherlands. The DNPA was used in different ways – either as a summative or formative assessment in a traditional assessment programme or as a non-high-stakes assessment in a programmatic assessment programme. Three medical schools changed from assessment programme over time.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>This study involved 1894 students. Summative assessment resulted in significantly higher scores and pass rates than formative assessment in a traditional assessment programme (mean score of 84.3% vs. 67.5%, and pass rate of 60.4% vs. 5.9%). In contrast, slightly lower scores were obtained when the assessment was non-high-stakes as part of a programmatic assessment programme rather than a summative assessment in a traditional assessment programme (mean score of 81.% vs. 84.3%, pass rate of 51.8% vs. 60.4%). In curricula where the assessment became summative instead of formative, scores and pass rates significantly improved (mean increase of +14.4% and 42.3%, respectively), when the assessment programme changed from traditional with summative assessment to programmatic with non-high-stakes assessment, scores and pass rates modestly decreased (decrease of 3.3% and 14.2%, respectively).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Integrating the DNPA within a traditional assessment programme is most effective when assessed summatively, as it results in significantly higher scores compared to formative assessment. In the context of a programmatic assessment programme, the scores may be slightly lower. Changing assessment programmes within a medical school influences DNPA scores. Scores increase when the assessment is summative rather than formative within a traditional assessment programme. Conversely, scores mildly decrease when the assessment programme shifts from traditional with summative assessment to non-high-stakes programmatic assessment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12004,"journal":{"name":"European journal of pharmacology","volume":"989 ","pages":"Article 177267"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014299925000202","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The Dutch National Pharmacotherapy Assessment (DNPA), which focuses on assessing medication safety and essential drug knowledge, was introduced to improve clinical pharmacology and therapeutics education in the Netherlands. This study investigated how the performance of final-year medical students on the DPNA was affected by the assessment programme (traditional with summative or formative assessment, and programmatic assessment).

Methods

This multicentre retrospective longitudinal observation study (2019–2023) involved final-year medical students from four medical schools in the Netherlands. The DNPA was used in different ways – either as a summative or formative assessment in a traditional assessment programme or as a non-high-stakes assessment in a programmatic assessment programme. Three medical schools changed from assessment programme over time.

Results

This study involved 1894 students. Summative assessment resulted in significantly higher scores and pass rates than formative assessment in a traditional assessment programme (mean score of 84.3% vs. 67.5%, and pass rate of 60.4% vs. 5.9%). In contrast, slightly lower scores were obtained when the assessment was non-high-stakes as part of a programmatic assessment programme rather than a summative assessment in a traditional assessment programme (mean score of 81.% vs. 84.3%, pass rate of 51.8% vs. 60.4%). In curricula where the assessment became summative instead of formative, scores and pass rates significantly improved (mean increase of +14.4% and 42.3%, respectively), when the assessment programme changed from traditional with summative assessment to programmatic with non-high-stakes assessment, scores and pass rates modestly decreased (decrease of 3.3% and 14.2%, respectively).

Conclusion

Integrating the DNPA within a traditional assessment programme is most effective when assessed summatively, as it results in significantly higher scores compared to formative assessment. In the context of a programmatic assessment programme, the scores may be slightly lower. Changing assessment programmes within a medical school influences DNPA scores. Scores increase when the assessment is summative rather than formative within a traditional assessment programme. Conversely, scores mildly decrease when the assessment programme shifts from traditional with summative assessment to non-high-stakes programmatic assessment.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
总结性、形成性或计划性评估对荷兰国家药物治疗评估的影响:一项回顾性多中心研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
572
审稿时长
34 days
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Pharmacology publishes research papers covering all aspects of experimental pharmacology with focus on the mechanism of action of structurally identified compounds affecting biological systems. The scope includes: Behavioural pharmacology Neuropharmacology and analgesia Cardiovascular pharmacology Pulmonary, gastrointestinal and urogenital pharmacology Endocrine pharmacology Immunopharmacology and inflammation Molecular and cellular pharmacology Regenerative pharmacology Biologicals and biotherapeutics Translational pharmacology Nutriceutical pharmacology.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Dihydromyricetin attenuates intervertebral disc degeneration by inhibiting NLRP3 inflammasome activation via the Keap1/Nrf2/HO-1 pathway. Evolocumab ameliorates myocardial fibrosis and improves metabolic syndrome-induced cardiac dysfunction in rats via inhibiting PCSK9/NLRP3 inflammasome and Caspase-1 / IL-1β pathways. Parishin A alleviates insomnia by regulating hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis homeostasis and directly targeting orexin receptor OX2. Unraveling rosmarinic acid anticancer mechanisms in oral cancer malignant transformation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1