A Comparison of the Arbitrary Set Fifty Percent Pass Mark Standard and Grade Point Average Attainment for Pharmacy Students at the University of Zambia: Implications for High-stakes decisions in Assessments

Authors

  • Michael Chigunta Department of Medical Education Development, University of Zambia, Lusaka, 10101, Zambia
  • Aubrey Chichonyi Kalungia Department of Medical Education Development, University of Zambia, Lusaka, 10101, Zambia
  • James Sichone Department of Medical Education Development, University of Zambia, Lusaka, 10101, Zambia
  • Moses Mukosha Department of Pharmacy, University of Zambia, Lusaka, 10101, Zambia
  • Chiluba Mwila Department of Pharmacy, University of Zambia, Lusaka, 10101, Zambia
  • Sekelani Banda Levy Mwanawasa Medical University, Lusaka, 10101, Zambia

Keywords:

Grade Point Average, Graduation Requirements, Pharmacy, Standard Setting

Abstract

In many higher learning institutions and Health Professions Education (HPE) programmes in particular, there exists varying standard setting methods for assessment, certification and graduation of students’ academic performance. In Zambia, the historic arbitrary set 50% pass-fail standard is predominant in most health professions’ training programmes. Scientific validation of this practice, however, remains scarce. The aim of this study was to compare the academic performance on the historic arbitrary set 50% pass-fail standard to the Grade Point Average (GPA) score attainment for pharmacy students examined between 2013 and 2017 at the University of Zambia. A cross-sectional study was conducted with a total of 445 randomly selected final examination results for undergraduate pharmacy students examined between 2013 and 2017 at the University of Zambia. The data was analysed using Stata 13 and GraphPad Prism 5.  For all the statistical tests conducted, normality of the data was checked using the Shapiro-Wilk test. There was statistically significant difference between the historic arbitrary set 50% pass-fail standard and the course-specific examination composite score attainment in all the courses (P<0.0001).

Additionally, there was a statistically significant difference between the examinees’ GPA score attained and the acceptable GPA score of 3.0 (Median GPA 1.75; IQR: 0.75-2.25 and 1.67; IQR: 1.0-2.0) for the fourth and fifth-year examinees respectively). The comparison of the academic performance on the arbitrary 50% pass-fail standard and GPA score attainment for pharmacy students revealed that despite students demonstrating ability to attain high course-specific composite scores using the arbitrary set 50% pass-fail standard, the attained median GPA score was statistically significantly less than the minimum acceptable GPA score of 3.0. While the 50% pass-fail standards’ precision to detect academic performance maybe questioned, the findings suggests that the incorporation of a credit point and GPA system for making assessment decisions to rate students, certification and graduation requirements in Health Professions Education may offer better precision and prediction to detect academic performance and competency attainment.

References

. Downing SM, Yudkowsky R. Assessment in Health Profession Education Madison Ave, New York: Routledge; 2009.

. Harvey M, Fraser S. Leadership and assessment: Strengthening the nexus. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council; 2008.

. Norcini J, Anderson B, Bollela V, Burch V, Costa MJ, Duvivier R, et al. Criteria for good assessment: consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. J Medical teacher. 2011;33(3):206-14.

. Biggs J. Assessment and classroom learning: a role for summative assessment? J Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy Practice. 1998;5(1):103-10.

. Banda SS. Standard setting and quality of assessment: A conceptual approach. J African Journal of Health Professions Education. 2016;8(1):9-10.

. Biggs JB, Collis KF. Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome): Academic Press; 2014.

. University_of_Zambia. Examination Regulation 2014.

. Mumm K, Karm M, Remmik MJJoF, Education H. Assessment for learning: Why assessment does not always support student teachers’ learning. 2016;40(6):780-803.

. MoE. Pre- and Post-Pilot Testing for the Continuous Assessment Programme in Lusaka, Southern and Western Provinces. Lusaka: GRZ; 2007.

. Kalungia AC, Munkombwe D, Kaonga P, Nzala S, Apampa B, Mulundu G, et al. Learning approach and teaching style preferred by pharmacy students: Implications for educational strategies in Zambia. J Pharmacy Education. 2019;19(1).

. Payne BR. The nature and predictive validity of a benchmark assessment program in an American Indian school district. 2013.

. Perie M. Building Valid and Useful Interim Assessments. 2014:1-13.

. Azmi N, Ali AM, Wong X-L, Kumolosasi E, Jamal JA, Paraidathatu T. Internal factors Affecting Academic Performance among Pharmacy Students in Malaysian Public Institutions of Higher Learning. Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Education and Research. 2014; Vol 48 Issue 3.

. Kidd RS, Latif DAJAJoPE. Traditional and novel predictors of classroom and clerkship success of pharmacy students. 2003;67(1/4):860.

Downloads

Published

2020-02-21

How to Cite

Chigunta, M. ., Kalungia, A. . C. ., Sichone, J. ., Mukosha, M. ., Mwila, C. ., & Banda, S. . (2020). A Comparison of the Arbitrary Set Fifty Percent Pass Mark Standard and Grade Point Average Attainment for Pharmacy Students at the University of Zambia: Implications for High-stakes decisions in Assessments. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR), 49(2), 216–224. Retrieved from https://gssrr.org/index.php/JournalOfBasicAndApplied/article/view/10870

Issue

Section

Articles