(69) A description of licensure exam preparation strategies among US pharmacy programs

Primary Author(s)

Diana M. Sobieraj, PharmD, FCCP (she/her/hers)

Director of Assessment and Associate Professor
University of Connecticut
Storrs, CT, United States

Co-Author(s)

Lisa Lebovitz, JD, MS

Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs and Assessment
University of Maryland
Baltimore, Maryland, United States
Aleda M. H. Chen, RPh, PharmD, PhD

Associate Dean, Professor of Pharmacy Practice
Cedarville University
Cedarville, OH, United States
JC

Jean T. Carter, MS, PharmD, PhD

Director of Academic Affairs and Assessment
University of Montana, Skaggs School of Pharmacy
Missoula, Montana, United States
MK

Michael P. Kelsch, PharmD

Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, Professor
North Dakota State University School of Pharmacy, United States
Mary E. Ray, PharmD

Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Clinical Associate Professor
University of Iowa
Iowa Cite, Iowa, United States

Objective : To describe the different strategies used to supplement North American Preparation Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) and Multistate Pharmacy Jurisprudence Examination (MPJE) preparation in US pharmacy programs.

Methods: An online survey was developed, pretested, and administered through Qualtrics to gather information from 141 accredited pharmacy programs about preparation methods used during the 2021-22 academic year. The questionnaire contained 19 NAPLEX- and 10 MPJE-specific questions related to the timing, content, use of commercial products, faculty involvement, and whether these activities were required. Characteristics of pharmacy programs were compared using a Chi-squared or t-test, as appropriate, based on presence or absence of preparation programs; preparation programs were descriptively reported.

Results: Of the 100 respondents (71% response rate), most schools (87%) provided NAPLEX preparation programs beginning in the advanced pharmacy practice experiential year, required participation, and focused on reviewing curricular content instead of assessing students’ examination readiness. Similar elements were reported by 61 schools that provided an MPJE preparation program. Vendor-generated question banks (55%), review material (44%), and completion of live, proctored, NAPLEX-like examinations (42%) were most often required for NAPLEX preparation whereas faculty-generated live, synchronous review (47%) and question banks (20%) were most common for MPJE preparation. Characteristics of pharmacy programs did not differ significantly based on offering a preparation program.

Conclusions: Pharmacy programs continue to seek better approaches for preparing students for licensure and are dedicating time and resources to ensuring that students pass the required examinations. Many require student participation in vendor-based preparation programs for NAPLEX, and homegrown programs for MPJE preparation. A next step will be to determine the effectiveness of the various approaches used by the pharmacy programs on first-time licensure examination attempts.