(337) A Tale of Two Calculations Course Designs and the Impact on Sequential Calculation Competency Exams

Objective : To compare the impact of asynchronous vs in-person pharmaceutical calculations formats on longitudinal pharmaceutical calculation performance.

Methods: This retrospective study compares longitudinal calculations competency performance which includes exam averages and remediation attempts between a traditional in-person course design and an online course design. De-identified exam data were used. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize performance. Students were stratified into top 25%, middle 50%, and bottom25% performances on the exams. Exam scores were analyzed with student’s t-tests.

Results: Students in the in-person format exhibited higher exam mean scores compared to the students in the online modality. When considering overall foundation courses, there were no significant differences in exam means between the two teaching modalities. Average mean of in-person and online formats was 91.24 and 90, respectively (p <.001). For top versus bottom performers, exam averages showed no significant difference between the two cohorts. There were a total of 28 repeats in the in-person format and 26 repeats in the online format. Among in-person format repeats, 18 out of 28 were from the bottom 25% performing students, while 3 out of 28 were from the top 25%. For the online format, 13 out of 26 repeats were from the bottom 25% performing students, and 3 out of 26 were in the top 25%.

Conclusions: Students who perform in the top 25% of the cohort continue to perform well and students who perform in the bottom 25% continue to perform in the bottom regardless of course design. Restructuring remediation efforts to support students performing in the bottom 25% may prove beneficial. Additional research regarding the best modality to teach pharmaceutical calculations in our current climate is needed.