Skip to main content
2023 Annual Meeting Main banner

Pharmacy Practice

(156) Impact of Collaborative Testing on Academic Performance in Pharmacy Education

    Primary Author(s)

  • William A. Prescott, Jr, PharmD

    Clinical Professor and Department Chair
    University at Buffalo, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences
    Buffalo, New York, United States

    • Co-Author(s)

  • JM

    Jaime Maerten-Rivera, PhD

    Director of Assessment
    University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
    Buffalo, New York, United States

  • AW

    Ashley Woodruff, PharmD

    Clinical Associate Professor
    University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
    Buffalo, NY, United States

  • Nicholas M. Fusco, Pharm.D.

    Clinical Associate Professor; Division Head, Division of Education and Teaching Innovation
    University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
    Buffalo, New York, United States

Objective : Collaborative Testing (CT), where students take an examination in two stages (individually then as a team), has been associated with improved learning in medical education. The primary objective of this study was to determine the impact of CT on learning in pharmacy education. It was hypothesized students would perform better on: (1) team-testing versus individual-testing; and (2) individual re-testing of concepts originally assessed through CT.

Methods: First-year pharmacy students in a patient-assessment course were divided into two groups (A and B) with each group divided into teams of 4-5 students. All students completed two section-exams (exams-1 and -2). At exam-1, group-A completed a traditional one-stage test (individual) while group-B completed a two-stage CT-exam (individual/team). At exam-2, groups A and B flipped. At end of semester, all students were individually re-examined using high-performing items from exam-1 and exam-2, and a final-exam consisting of related, validated items. Individual/team scores on exam-1 and exam-2 were compared to evaluate team-testing versus individual-testing. To evaluate learning of concepts originally assessed through CT, performance on related items on re-testing were analyzed.

Results: Students performed better on team-testing than individual-testing across all cognition levels (p <.001). On re-testing, there were no overall changes in performance on items students answered incorrectly during exam-1 or -2 (p=.08); however, greater improvement on skill/concept items initially tested through CT (versus one-stage testing) was observed (p <.01). Re-testing on related items improved (p <.001), however, there were no differences on related items previously assessed through CT specifically.

Conclusions: CT provides an opportunity for students to receive immediate feedback and learn from their peers. Students performed better on team-testing than individual-testing and may have performed better on specific items (e.g., skill/concept) initially answered incorrectly.