OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of campus-based students with that of distance students during the first 2 years of a doctor of pharmacy program to evaluate parity between the pathways. METHODS: Twelve cases were created for each year of the program along with performance criteria. The cases were converted into computer-based simulations for programmatic assessment at the end of the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 school years. All first-professional year (P1) and second-professional year (P2) students participated in the assessments. Overall class means were calculated and used to compare student performances between campus and distance education pathways. RESULTS: Overall scores for the 2003 P1 class were 56.4% for the campus-based students and 62.4% for the distance students, (p = 0.002); overall scores for the 2003 P2 class were 48.8% and 55.5%, respectively (p < 0.0001). The 2004 overall scores for P1 campus and distance students were 59.0% and 65.7%, respectively, (p = 0.001); and for 2004 P2 scores the results were 51.8% and 56.5%, respectively (p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Students receiving their pharmacy education via a distance pathway scored higher on performance-based assessments compared with students receiving their pharmacy education via the traditional campus-based pathway. This indicates that distance students are receiving at least an equivalent curricular experience in the P1 and P2 years compared to that received by campus-based students.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of campus-based students with that of distance students during the first 2 years of a doctor of pharmacy program to evaluate parity between the pathways. METHODS: Twelve cases were created for each year of the program along with performance criteria. The cases were converted into computer-based simulations for programmatic assessment at the end of the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 school years. All first-professional year (P1) and second-professional year (P2) students participated in the assessments. Overall class means were calculated and used to compare student performances between campus and distance education pathways. RESULTS: Overall scores for the 2003 P1 class were 56.4% for the campus-based students and 62.4% for the distance students, (p = 0.002); overall scores for the 2003 P2 class were 48.8% and 55.5%, respectively (p < 0.0001). The 2004 overall scores for P1 campus and distance students were 59.0% and 65.7%, respectively, (p = 0.001); and for 2004 P2 scores the results were 51.8% and 56.5%, respectively (p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Students receiving their pharmacy education via a distance pathway scored higher on performance-based assessments compared with students receiving their pharmacy education via the traditional campus-based pathway. This indicates that distance students are receiving at least an equivalent curricular experience in the P1 and P2 years compared to that received by campus-based students.
Authors: Jacqueline E McLaughlin; LaToya M Griffin; Denise A Esserman; Christopher A Davidson; Dylan M Glatt; Mary T Roth; Nastaran Gharkholonarehe; Russell J Mumper Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Robert A Blouin; William H Riffee; Evan T Robinson; Diane E Beck; Charles Green; Pamela U Joyner; Adam M Persky; Gary M Pollack Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2009-12-17 Impact factor: 2.047