com
Research Article
http://www.pharmacyteaching.com
Abstract
Objectives: To measure the retention of basic sciences knowledge in a PharmD program over a period of two years.
Methods: The study was conducted in two phases using assessment scores of the students. The rst phase measured the
whether basic science knowledge was retained over a period of two years using historical data. The aim of the second phase
was the same, but used a prospective study design. Additionally, the second phase also examined subject wise retention of
knowledge.
Results: The rst phase data analysis across all subjects showed a slight decay of knowledge over two years. The second phase
data analysis showed relatively small signicant knowledge gain across all subjects and moderately signicant knowledge gain
for biomedical sciences.
Conclusions: The results of the study demonstrate a varying level of retention of biomedical science s and pharmacology
knowledge over time. With the understanding that the graduating pharmacy students are not expected to retain or remember all
the knowledge they gained from the rst year of the program, these results demonstrate a satisfactory level of retention.
r 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Knowledge retention; Basic pharmaceutical sciences; Knowledge retention over time; End-of-year assessment
Introduction
Stobaeus philosophized What use is knowledge if there
is no understanding? Einstein, when opining the eld of
education, was quoted as saying knowledge must
continually be renewed by ceaseless effort, if it is not to
be lost.1 These great minds knew that knowledge was
something that was only as important as the comprehension
and retention it offered to students. Assessments of knowledge, both formative and summative, are a regular part of
* Corresponding author: Elizabeth J Unni, PhD, Roseman
University of Health Sciences College of Pharmacy, 10920 South
River Front Parkway, South Jordan, UT 84095.
E-mail: eunni@roseman.edu
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2016.08.018
1877-1297/r 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
828
E.J. Unni et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 8 (2016) 827832
E.J. Unni et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 8 (2016) 827832
Data analysis
Paired t-test was used to estimate if there was a
signicant difference between the P1 EOY score and P2
EOY score of the students. The signicance of the knowledge gain/decay was determined using the Cohens d effect
size. The internal consistency of each assessment was
determined using the KuderRichardson 20 (KR 20)
coefcient. Also, the item difculty (the proportion of
students who answered the item correctly) and item
discrimination (ability of an item to differentiate among
students on the basis of how well they know the material
being tested) for each assessment was determined. The item
difculty can range from 0.0 to 1.0; higher numbers indicate
more students answering the item correctly. The item
difculty for an assessment is the average item difculties
for all the items and the recommendation is between 60%
and 80% for an assessment with four-option multiple
choice. For item discrimination, the discrimination is
considered good if the index is above 0.30, fair if it is
between 0.10 and 0.30, and poor if it is below 0.10.
Subject-specic analyses were used to determine which
subjects were better retained by students at the end of
second year. The 50 questions in the P2 EOY assessment
that were based on P1 basic science materials were divided
into three sections: (1) biomedical sciences that included
biochemistry, medicinal chemistry, immunology, and biostatistics (20 questions); (2) pharmaceutics (11 questions);
and (3) pharmacology (15 questions). The remaining four
questions from social/administrative/behavioral sciences
were not included in this analysis.
In addition, a linear multiple regression analysis was
used to determine predictors of the P2 EOY basic science
score. The main independent variable was the P1 EOY
score and the analysis was controlled for gender, study time,
and study methods used by students. Students were asked
how long they prepared for the EOY assessment for the
study time variable (measured as no preparation, less than
two hours, two to ve hours, and more than ve hours) and
how they prepared for the EOY assessment for the study
method variable (measured as no preparation, prepared
using prior years EOY assessments, prepared using prior
regular assessments, or a combination of any of these
items). These questions were asked at the end of the P2
EOY assessment and data was collected anonymously. All
829
830
E.J. Unni et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 8 (2016) 827832
Table
Retention of basic pharmaceutical and biomedical sciences over time among PharmD studentsTable
Type of
assessment
Description of
assessment
Assessment
mean and
standard
deviation as %
Practical
Statistical
signicance
signicance (effect size by
(paired t-test) Cohens d)
Item difculty
(median and
Reliability 25th/75th
(KR 20)
percentile)
academic pharmacy literature. Retention of basic pharmaceutical science knowledge is essential for developing apt
clinical skills in pharmacy students. According to the
Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE)
Standards 2016, The graduate must be able to develop,
integrate, and apply knowledge from the foundational
sciences (i.e., biomedical, pharmaceutical, social/
Item
discrimination
(median and 25th/
75th percentile)
0.17 (0.09/0.25)
0.17 (0.10/0.27)
86 (72/95)
0.17 (0.11/0.26)
88 (73/97)
0.18 (0.07/0.23)
80 (71/93)
0.14 (0.09/0.25)
91(73/96)
0.15 (0.01/0.21)
88 (70/96)
0.20 (0.10/0.25)
73 (69/97)
0.10 (0.07/0.21)
87 (72/96)
0.26 (0.15/0.28)
92 (81/97)
0.23 (0.14/0.26)
E.J. Unni et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 8 (2016) 827832
831
832
E.J. Unni et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 8 (2016) 827832
14. Kumar S, Dohre S, Tatkare N, Chandramani S. Better knowledge retention in physiology: a favourable outcome of vertical
integration. Natl J Integr Res Med. 2013;4(5):6064.
15. Malau-Aduli B, Lee A, Cooling N, Catchpole M, Jose M,
Turner R. Retention of knowledge and perceived relevance of
basic sciences in an integrated case-based learning (CBL)
curriculum. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13(1):139.
16. Woloschuk W, Mandin H, Harasym P, Lorscheider F, Brant R.
Retention of basic science knowledge: a comparison between
body system-based and clinical presentation curricula. Teach
Learn Med. 2004;16(2):116122.
17. Smith SR. Toward an integrated medical curriculum. Med
Health R I. 2005;88(8):258261.
18. Schmidt HG, Machiels-Bongaerts M, Hermans H, ten Cate TJ,
Venekamp R, Boshuizen HP. The development of diagnostic
competence: comparison of a problem-based, an integrated,
and a conventional medical curriculum. Acad Med. 1996;71(6):
658664.
19. Kolluru S, Lemke TL. An assessment model for multidisciplinary, team-taught integrated pharmacy courses. Am J Pharm
Educ. 2012;76(8): Article 157.
20. Kullgren J, Radhakrishnan R, Unni E, Hanson E. An integrated
course in pain management and palliative care bridging the
basic sciences and pharmacy practice. Am J Pharm Educ. 2013;
77(6): Article 121.
21. Norman G. Where we want to be by 2010? The essential role
of basic science in medical education: the perspective from
psychology. Clin Invest Med. 2000;23(1):4751.