This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
OBJECTIVE: To assess students' program-required and self-directed preparation for the North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination (NAPLEX), as well as determine any association between pass rates and timing of the NAPLEX after graduation, completion of a National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) practice exam, pharmacy grade average point (GPA), remedial course work, self-directed study hours, program-required preparation hours, and primary language. METHODS: A survey was administered to Class of 2024 graduates from 9 schools, which collected self-reported data on NAPLEX attempt (pass/fail, timing after graduation, study time, commercial products used), preparation (both program-required and self-directed), perception of their preparation, and advice they would give to others. Descriptive statistics were examined, and comparisons were conducted between those who passed and those who failed. RESULTS: A total of 717 Class of 2024 graduates from 9 schools took the NAPLEX, and 329 individuals completed the survey (response rate, 45.9%). Most respondents took the NAPLEX within 60 days of graduation and spent up to 3 months preparing. Most students reported feeling adequately prepared for the NAPLEX (80%), with the lowest level of agreement for preparedness in compounding, dispensing, and administering drugs (73.9%). Group comparisons demonstrated significant differences in NAPLEX pass rates based on the time after graduation that the NAPLEX was taken and pharmacy GPA. CONCLUSION: This study reinforces that characteristics, particularly the timing of the exam in relation to graduation and cumulative GPA, are significantly associated with NAPLEX outcomes. The findings underscore patterns in preparation strategies, timing, academic achievement, and perceived gaps in readiness that are valuable for both educators and students.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maerten-Rivera et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: