Association Between Accreditation Era, North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination Testing Changes, and First-Time Pass Rates.

Objective. To estimate whether first-time pass rates on the North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) have been influenced by the number of pharmacy programs founded since 2000, the programs' accreditation era, and the changes to the blueprint as well as changes to the testing conditions and passing standards implemented by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) beginning in 2015.Methods. This was a retrospective, observational cohort study using publicly published data. The number of programs and pass rates were collected from 2008 to 2020. Programs reporting pass rates from 2016 to 2020 were eligible. Accreditation era was defined as programs accredited before or after 2000. Pass rates were categorized into NAPLEX tests administered before or after 2015. Statistical analyses were conducted for comparisons.Results. Pass rates were initially found to decline as the number of programs rose. First-time pass rates of programs accredited before 2000 were higher than pass rates of programs accredited after 2000 every year after 2011. Only 40% of the programs accredited after 2000 exceeded the national average between 2016-2020. Blueprint changes implemented in 2015 and the changes to testing conditions plus passing standards implemented in 2016 had a greater effect on pass rates than the number of programs or applicants.Conclusion. Programs accredited after 2000 generally had lower first-time NAPLEX pass rates. Even so, blueprint changes and changes to the testing conditions plus passing standards instituted by the NABP were more important predictors of the decline of first-time NAPLEX pass rates. Stakeholders should collaborate and embrace best practices for assessing practice-ready competency for licensure.

Predicting the 2016 US News & World Report rankings using a reputation and prestige model.

INTRODUCTION: The objective was to determine institutional, faculty, and student attributes predictive of the 2016 US News & World Report (USNWR) pharmacy rankings and to explore if student attributes modify program rankings. METHODS: Institutional attributes and student and faculty resources and outcomes were obtained from various sources. Regression analyses predicted rankings. RESULTS: USNWR rankings were higher for older programs, those located at an academic health center or classified as a research-intensive institution, and members of a Power Five athletic conference. Number of fulltime equivalent faculty, Pharmacy College Admissions Test composite percentile, pharmacy practice h-index score, funding rank, and first time North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) pass rate predicted higher rankings. Nearly 45% of programs in the empiric models left or entered the top 25 rankings compared with the existing USNWR method (range 31 place increase to 22 place decrease). Among USNWR top 25 ranked programs, 16 remained in the top 25 in all four empiric models and three were not included in any of the models. Six USNWF unranked programs moved into the top 25 by one or more of the empiric models. CONCLUSIONS: Faculty and student attributes significantly impact program rankings, while impact of institutional attributes is negligible if independent of student and faculty attributes. Faculty numbers and productivity influence USNWR rankings more than student academic preparation and success on NAPLEX. These findings will inform efforts to improve the validity of the USNWR rankings and identify programs that are both prestigious and of high quality.

Elucidation of a resource reputation model to explain US News & World Report ranking using path analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The US News & World Report (USNWR) ranking is based on a reputation and prestige survey mailed to academic peers. This study's goal was to determine direct and indirect institutional, faculty, and student attributes predictive of the 2016 USNWR pharmacy rankings. METHODS: The Resource and Reputation Model (RRM) explains the development of perceptions of reputation and prestige. Institutional characteristics as well as student and faculty resources and outcomes were obtained from various sources. Path analysis determined the total, direct, and indirect effects. RESULTS: USNWR rankings were higher if programs were older, affiliated with an academic health center, classified as a research-intensive institution, and members of a Power 5 football conference. Program rank was predicted by the number of full-time faculty equivalents and pharmacy practice h-index score and funding. Pharmacy College Admissions Test comprehensive percentile and first-time North American Pharmacy Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) pass rate were also predictive of higher rank. All but affiliation with an academic health center or research-intensive institution directly predicted rank, but they had indirect impact through programmatic quality attributes. CONCLUSIONS: The RRM helps to explain pharmacy programs' USNWR rankings. Elucidation of its components provide insight into explaining the rankings and improving the methodology. Academic pharmacy could work with USNWR to develop criteria-based objective methodology to validate and improve rankings. Faculty, faculty productivity, and student academic preparation and success on NAPLEX influence USNWR rankings more than immutable factors such as program age and affiliations.