Idea Density in Exam Performance

NCT ID: NCT05526365

Last Updated: 2023-10-10

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

204 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2022-10-03

Study Completion Date

2022-12-06

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Text can be written in multiple ways to mean the same thing; changing how a text is written can make it easier or harder to understand. How many concepts or ideas there are in a text, divided by the total number of words, is one possible way to determine how easy or hard it is to understand. This ratio is called idea density (ID).

Varying ID has been shown to affect the speed at which a reader understands; it impacts certain people more than others, such as second language speakers. This effect may be of particular importance in an exam, where understanding a question in a limited time is key. In the UK, pharmacy students must undertake an exam set by the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) to be registered as pharmacists. The exam involves pharmaceutical calculations and shows variable pass rates. This study aims to evaluate the impact of reducing ID in a pharmaceutical calculation test and will be conducted in 14 schools of pharmacy in the UK. All participants will take a GPhC style test. Then, participants will be divided into two groups of equal size; one group will undertake a second test with the same ID as the first, while the second group will undertake a test with a lower ID. Finally, the investigators will compare the second test scores between the two groups as cohorts and question by question, evaluating whether lowering ID has increased students' scores.

If and effect is seen, ensuring that questions are written with a controlled ID may help ensure we are examining more fairly and allowing students with the requisite knowledge to pass.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Pharmaceutical Council must be undertaken. It involves pharmaceutical calculations and shows variable pass rates. Linguistic factors, such as idea density, affect and predict comprehension time. This trial will evaluate the effect of lowering question idea density on attainment in a pharmaceutical calculations exam aligned to that of the General Pharmaceutical Council.

Methods: This is a single-blind, parallel 2-arm multicentre randomised controlled trial conducted in fourteen Universities across the United Kingdom. A 1:1 randomisation and a sample size of 188 pharmacy students will be sufficient to detect a 1-point difference in the mean scores between the intervention and control group during a pharmacy calculation test with two-tails, 80% power and 5% significance level. Each school will recruit a minimum of 14/15 students. Participants will sit two 12-question pharmaceutical calculation tests. All participants will take the same baseline test; then, will be randomised and undertake a second test 2-week after, with standard idea density for the control group and lower idea density for the intervention. Primary outcome: the scores obtained by the participants undertaking the second calculation test 2-week after the baseline. Secondary outcomes: percentage of students achieving a pass during the second test; effect of demographic characteristics (first or not-first English language speakers, age, ethnicity, year of study, specific learning disability) on participants' attainment when lowering idea density.

Conclusion: Results could inform the development of new standards in the pharmaceutical calculations exam.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Medical Education Health Education Educational Assessment

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Participants randomised to two arms, control and intervention
Primary Study Purpose

BASIC_SCIENCE

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Participants
Students will be blinded to allocation; performed using sequentially generated random numbers. The control and intervention exams will be identical in all but the idea density of the questions.

The students are the unit of randomisation and intervention. As the randomisation will be 1:1, the block size multiplier will be 2, 4, 6 and the block size 4, 8, and 12. This approach will reduce bias and balance allocating participants to the treatment arm. Furthermore, the process will adopt block permutation, meaning that treatment assignments within blocks are determined to be random in order but that the desired allocation proportions are achieved exactly within each block.

A computerised random number generator will generate the sequence

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Control

Participants in the control group will receive an initial 12 question baseline test (same as intervention). They will after two weeks receive a second test that is linguistically the same as the national GPhC exam.

Group Type NO_INTERVENTION

No interventions assigned to this group

Intervention

Participants in the intervention group will receive an initial 12 question baseline test (same as control). They will after two weeks receive a second test that is reduced in idea density by around 10% overall.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Reduced Idea Density

Intervention Type OTHER

Question idea density reduced (ratio of propositions to total words used).

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Reduced Idea Density

Question idea density reduced (ratio of propositions to total words used).

Intervention Type OTHER

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Over 18 years of age
* Registered as a student on an MPharm course in the UK
* Be in years 1-4 of the course (levels 1-7)

Exclusion Criteria

* Under 18
* Not registered on an MPharm course in the UK
* Are currently undertaking a foundation year (level 3)
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

University of Central Lancashire

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Aston University

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

University of Birmingham

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

University of Bradford

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

De Montfort University

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

University of Greenwich

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

University of Huddersfield

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Kingston University

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Newcastle University

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Queen's University, Belfast

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Robert Gordon University

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

University of Ulster

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

University of Wolverhampton

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Liverpool John Moores University

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Andrew Lunn

Lecturer in Clinical Pharmacy

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Liverpool John Moores University

Liverpool, Merseyside, United Kingdom

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United Kingdom

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

22/PBS/004

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Suiting up to Empathy
NCT04133727 COMPLETED NA