Assessment Structure, Culture, and Resources at US AAVMC-Accredited Colleges of Veterinary Medicine.

While outcomes assessment is commonplace in colleges of veterinary medicine, no information is published on how veterinary colleges resource, administer, and view assessment. Consequently, this article has the following objectives: (a) to determine the current level of resources (personnel, committees, software) allocated toward education assessment and program evaluation in colleges of veterinary medicine, (b) to characterize any common organizational structures within colleges of veterinary medicine for assessment, (c) to determine assessment personnel (faculty and staff) perceptions regarding whether existing assessment resources and structures are sufficient, and (d) to examine the perceived strength of the culture of assessment. Our survey found that most assessment professionals had been in their position for 4 years or less and over 50% did not have formal assessment training. A majority of respondents agreed that assessment was encouraged and supported at their institution, but there was much less agreement on items related to formal plans and structures. For example, only one quarter of respondents reported that assessment was connected to planning and budgeting, and only one third reported having a formal assessment plan. We hope that our survey will be a resource tracking the development of assessment resources and climate at American colleges of veterinary medicine.

Surveying the current landscape of assessment structures and resources in US schools and colleges of pharmacy.

INTRODUCTION: Expectations for assessment in higher education have increased in recent decades, prompting institutions to invest additional resources in this area. This study aimed to determine the resources, structure, and perception of assessment resources in United States schools and colleges of pharmacy (S/COPs). METHODS: Assessment personnel in S/COPs were surveyed electronically. Information collected included S/COP demographics, composition of assessment positions, experience and training of assessment personnel, and structure and responsibilities of committees engaged in assessment. Respondents' perception of their S/COPs having sufficient assessment personnel, recent changes in assessment, and the factors that prompted assessment changes were also surveyed. RESULTS: Respondents included individuals from 113 S/COPs (84% response rate). Most S/COPs had 1-2 assessment positions and 1-2 assessment-related committees. The most common assessment position titles were assistant/associate dean, director, coordinator/specialist, and administrative assistant. Dean-level administrators typically had worked in assessment the longest, whereas directors were more likely to have formal assessment training. Most respondents (75%) agreed they had sufficient assessment personnel to meet the 2007 Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education Standards. Nearly two-thirds of respondents agreed they had sufficient personnel to meet the 2016 Standards and support their current assessment plan/process. Most S/COPs had a formal assessment committee (93%) and an average of two committees overseeing assessment. CONCLUSION: Most S/COPs reported having sufficient resources to support assessment activities. Although there were some consistent themes, there does not appear to be a single model for structuring assessment resources or committees. Effectiveness of various assessment structures represents an area for future research.

Factors associated with cultures of assessment at US schools and colleges of pharmacy.

INTRODUCTION: Pharmacy education has standards for assessment that must be met, prompting many programs to develop cultures of assessment. This study assesses the extent to which assessment personnel perceive that a culture of assessment has been established within their schools/colleges of pharmacy (S/COPs) and determines whether a relationship exists between assessment structure and the perceived strength of the culture of assessment. METHODS: An electronic survey was administered to assessment personnel at 134 S/COPs. Respondents were asked about changes within the past five years pertaining to assessment personnel/committees and factors prompting these changes. They were also asked to rate items related to support for institutional assessment (SIA scale) and faculty engagement with assessment (FEA scale). The reliability of each scale was estimated using Cronbach alpha and bivariate correlations were conducted to estimate the relationships among the two scales and other survey items. RESULTS: The S/COP response rate was 84% (113/134). Most (58%) noted the formation or re-structuring of the assessment office, with 26% creating one or more new assessment positions. The most common source of change was new accreditation standards (55%) followed by a new leadership position created in assessment (40%). Cronbach alpha for the SIA scale was 0.79 and 0.84 for the FEA scale. Program size was strongly negatively correlated with school age (rs = -0.58) and the FEA scale (r = -0.21). CONCLUSIONS: There was a strong relationship between SIA and FEA. Future studies are warranted to determine the interdependency of support for assessment and faculty engagement with assessment.

Assessment of students' critical-thinking and problem-solving abilities across a 6-year doctor of pharmacy program.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of using a validated set of assessment rubrics to assess students' critical-thinking and problem-solving abilities across a doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) curriculum. METHODS: Trained faculty assessors used validated rubrics to assess student work samples for critical-thinking and problem-solving abilities. Assessment scores were collected and analyzed to determine student achievement of these 2 ability outcomes across the curriculum. Feasibility of the process was evaluated in terms of time and resources used. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-one samples were assessed for critical thinking, and 159 samples were assessed for problem-solving. Rubric scoring allowed assessors to evaluate four 5- to 7-page work samples per hour. The analysis indicated that overall critical-thinking scores improved over the curriculum. Although low yield for problem-solving samples precluded meaningful data analysis, it was informative for identifying potentially needed curricular improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Use of assessment rubrics for program ability outcomes was deemed authentic and feasible. Problem-solving was identified as a curricular area that may need improving. This assessment method has great potential to inform continuous quality improvement of a PharmD program.