Examinations are typically used in higher education to objectively assess student learning, and they are also used as a frequent assessment tool in the Doctor of Pharmacy curriculum. This paper describes best practices and provides examples for faculty to build reliable and valid examinations, ensure examination security and deter academic misconduct, and enhance student learning and achievement of course objectives. Colleges and schools of pharmacy can incorporate these concepts into comprehensive examination policies and focus faculty development efforts on improving the examination purpose, design, and experience for both faculty and students.

Objective. To provide a practical guide to examination item writing, item statistics, and score adjustment for use by pharmacy and other health professions educators. Findings. Each examination item type possesses advantages and disadvantages. Whereas selected response items allow for efficient assessment of student recall and understanding of content, constructed response items appear better suited for assessment of higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy. Although clear criteria have not been established, accepted ranges for item statistics and examination reliability have been identified. Existing literature provides guidance on when instructors should consider revising or removing items from future examinations based on item statistics and review, but limited information is available on performing score adjustments. Summary. Instructors should select item types that align with the intended learning objectives to be measured on the examination. Ideally, an examination will consist of multiple item types to capitalize on the advantages and limit the effects of any disadvantages associated with a specific item format. Score adjustments should be performed judiciously and by considering all available item information. Colleges and schools should consider developing item writing and score adjustment guidelines to promote consistency.

Objective. To examine the extent of financial and faculty resources dedicated to preparing students for NAPLEX and PCOA examinations, and how these investments compare with NAPLEX pass rates. Methods. A 23-item survey was administered to assessment professionals in U.S. colleges and schools of pharmacy (C/SOPs). Institutions were compared by type, age, and student cohort size. Institutional differences were explored according to the costs and types of NAPLEX and PCOA preparation provided, if any, and mean NAPLEX pass rates. Results. Of 134 C/SOPs that received the survey invitation, 91 responded. Nearly 80% of these respondents reported providing some form of NAPLEX preparation. Significantly higher 2015 mean NAPLEX pass rates were found in public institutions, schools that do not provide NAPLEX prep, and schools spending less than $10,000 annually on NAPLEX prep. Only 18 schools reported providing PCOA preparation. Conclusion. Investment in NAPLEX and PCOA preparation resources vary widely across C/SOPs but may increase in the next few years, due to dropping NAPLEX pass rates and depending upon how PCOA data are used.

Those involved in providing faculty development may be among only a few individuals for whom faculty development is an interest and priority within their work setting. Furthermore, funding to support faculty development is limited. In 2010, an interprofessional, self-formed, faculty learning community on faculty development in teaching was established to promote collaboration on faculty development initiatives that have transference to faculty members across disciplines and to share expertise and resources for wider impact. The organic structure and processes of the faculty learning community created an environment that has not only resulted in an increased offering of faculty development opportunities and resources across the health science campus, but has created a rich environment that combines the knowledge, innovation, and experience to promote collaborative efforts that benefit all. The background, structure, processes, successes, and lessons learned of the interprofessional faculty learning community on faculty development in teaching are described.

No abstract