Pilot study shows algebra-based pre-test can predict performance in pharmacy calculation assessments, suggesting intervention opportunities.
Objective: Pharmacy calculations are crucial for practice and licensure examinations. This study aimed to be the first to assess the external validity of the correlation between an algebra-based pre-test, previously published, and calculation assessment performances. A secondary objective was to identify variables associated with poor assessment performance. Methods: An 18-item survey and an 18-question algebra-based pre-test were distributed to 144 first professional-year (P1) candidates on the first day of their fall 2024’s semester. This was used to characterize student-specific variables (e.g. work experience). The survey included dichotomous (yes/no) and rating (5-point Likert scale) items; the algebra-based pre-test included open-response items. Data were analyzed using linear regression and logistic regression to determine variables associated with passing (≥70%) or not passing (<70%) assessments. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between the algebra-based pre-test and assessment performance. Results: Ninety-one candidates (63%) completed the survey, and 139 (97%) completed the algebra-based pre-test. Variables associated with passing assessments (p<.05) included no prior work experience (adjusted odds ratio=6.6, confidence interval=1.3-34.3) and algebra-based pre-test performance >15/18 points (adjusted odds ratio=5.9, confidence interval=1.6-21.8). Algebra-based pre-test performance was moderately correlated with assessment scores (Pearson correlation coefficients: 0.47 for assessments one and two, 0.4 for assessment three). Conclusions: The algebra-based pre-test had a comparable correlation to assessment performance to previously published results and could be a tool to identify those at risk for poor pharmacy calculation assessment performance across the academy. Future studies warrant utilization of this algebra-based pre-test to target interventions to those at high risk of poor performance on calculations content.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shapcott et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: