Development and Validation of Pharmacology Concept Inventory for Concept-Based Learning: Leveraging Theory, Expert Insights, and Student Perspectives.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Adeladlew K Netere, Tony Hughes, Anna-Marie Babey, Clare Guilding, Carolina Restini, Martin Hawes, John P Kelly, Elvan Djouma, Jennifer Koenig, Jacqueline E McLaughlin, Olusola Olafuyi, Lynette B Fernandes, Janet Mifsud, Graeme J Sills, Anneke H van Houwelingen, Steven J Tucker, Willmann Liang, Patrik Aronsson, Farhan Ahmad Khan, Tina Hinton, Mark Hernandez, Lindsay Cormier, Roisin Kelly-Laubscher, Fabiana A Caetano Crowley, Marina Junqueira Santiago, Margaret Cunningham, Jennelle Durnett Richardson, Kelly Karpa, Paul J White
{"title":"Development and Validation of Pharmacology Concept Inventory for Concept-Based Learning: Leveraging Theory, Expert Insights, and Student Perspectives.","authors":"Adeladlew K Netere, Tony Hughes, Anna-Marie Babey, Clare Guilding, Carolina Restini, Martin Hawes, John P Kelly, Elvan Djouma, Jennifer Koenig, Jacqueline E McLaughlin, Olusola Olafuyi, Lynette B Fernandes, Janet Mifsud, Graeme J Sills, Anneke H van Houwelingen, Steven J Tucker, Willmann Liang, Patrik Aronsson, Farhan Ahmad Khan, Tina Hinton, Mark Hernandez, Lindsay Cormier, Roisin Kelly-Laubscher, Fabiana A Caetano Crowley, Marina Junqueira Santiago, Margaret Cunningham, Jennelle Durnett Richardson, Kelly Karpa, Paul J White","doi":"10.1002/prp2.70237","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Misconceptions in pharmacology can undermine learning and compromise both clinical and scientific reasoning, yet few validated tools exist to identify them. Consequently, we developed and validated the Pharmacology Concept Inventory (PCI), which can be used to identify misconceptions, assess learning gains, and evaluate teaching effectiveness. This PCI was designed based on the IUPHAR-Education Section (IUPHAR-Ed) Core Concepts of Pharmacology Project, addressing eight core concepts: drug efficacy, drug-target interaction, steady-state concentration, structure-activity relationship, drug tolerance, drug bioavailability, volume of distribution, and drug clearance. A triangulated design strategy integrated theoretical frameworks, expert review, and student perspectives. Experts examined quality, content validity, and cognitive alignment. The pilot PCI was then administered to a student cohort to evaluate its psychometric properties, providing preliminary evidence for further refinement. Item-level content validity indices ranged from 0.67 to 1.00, with a scale-level average of 0.93. Seventy students completed the pilot survey, leading to the exclusion of items with low discrimination and reliability. Items on drug-target interaction were removed due to consistently poor performance. The final PCI included 26 items covering seven concepts, with strong discrimination indices (0.36-0.75) and difficulty indices (0.26-0.71). Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.91), and concept-level reliability ranged from 0.64 to 0.85. The PCI provides strong evidence for identifying misconceptions and assessing learning outcomes through a pre-post-test approach. Although the PCI currently addresses only a subset of concepts, continued refinements informed by surveys and interviews will enhance its utility and expand its scope for concept-based learning and curriculum evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":19948,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacology Research & Perspectives","volume":"14 2","pages":"e70237"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13140222/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacology Research & Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/prp2.70237","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Misconceptions in pharmacology can undermine learning and compromise both clinical and scientific reasoning, yet few validated tools exist to identify them. Consequently, we developed and validated the Pharmacology Concept Inventory (PCI), which can be used to identify misconceptions, assess learning gains, and evaluate teaching effectiveness. This PCI was designed based on the IUPHAR-Education Section (IUPHAR-Ed) Core Concepts of Pharmacology Project, addressing eight core concepts: drug efficacy, drug-target interaction, steady-state concentration, structure-activity relationship, drug tolerance, drug bioavailability, volume of distribution, and drug clearance. A triangulated design strategy integrated theoretical frameworks, expert review, and student perspectives. Experts examined quality, content validity, and cognitive alignment. The pilot PCI was then administered to a student cohort to evaluate its psychometric properties, providing preliminary evidence for further refinement. Item-level content validity indices ranged from 0.67 to 1.00, with a scale-level average of 0.93. Seventy students completed the pilot survey, leading to the exclusion of items with low discrimination and reliability. Items on drug-target interaction were removed due to consistently poor performance. The final PCI included 26 items covering seven concepts, with strong discrimination indices (0.36-0.75) and difficulty indices (0.26-0.71). Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.91), and concept-level reliability ranged from 0.64 to 0.85. The PCI provides strong evidence for identifying misconceptions and assessing learning outcomes through a pre-post-test approach. Although the PCI currently addresses only a subset of concepts, continued refinements informed by surveys and interviews will enhance its utility and expand its scope for concept-based learning and curriculum evaluation.

基于概念学习的药理学概念量表的开发和验证:利用理论、专家见解和学生观点。
药理学上的误解会破坏学习,损害临床和科学推理,但很少有有效的工具来识别它们。因此,我们开发并验证了药理学概念量表(PCI),该量表可用于识别误解、评估学习收益和评估教学效果。本PCI是根据iuphar教育部分(IUPHAR-Ed)药理学项目核心概念设计的,涉及八个核心概念:药物功效、药物-靶标相互作用、稳态浓度、构效关系、药物耐受性、药物生物利用度、分布体积和药物清除率。三角化设计策略整合了理论框架、专家评论和学生观点。专家们检查了质量、内容有效性和认知一致性。然后对一组学生进行PCI试验,以评估其心理测量特性,为进一步改进提供初步证据。项目水平的内容效度指数范围为0.67 ~ 1.00,量表水平的平均值为0.93。70名学生完成了试点调查,导致排除了低辨识度和低信度的项目。由于一直表现不佳,关于药物-靶标相互作用的项目被删除。最终PCI包括26个条目,涵盖7个概念,具有强判别指数(0.36 ~ 0.75)和难度指数(0.26 ~ 0.71)。内部一致性高(Cronbach's alpha = 0.91),概念水平信度为0.64 ~ 0.85。PCI为通过前-后测试方法识别误解和评估学习成果提供了强有力的证据。虽然PCI目前只涉及概念的一个子集,但通过调查和访谈的持续改进将增强其效用,并扩大其基于概念的学习和课程评估的范围。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-General Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.80%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: PR&P is jointly published by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (ASPET), the British Pharmacological Society (BPS), and Wiley. PR&P is a bi-monthly open access journal that publishes a range of article types, including: target validation (preclinical papers that show a hypothesis is incorrect or papers on drugs that have failed in early clinical development); drug discovery reviews (strategy, hypotheses, and data resulting in a successful therapeutic drug); frontiers in translational medicine (drug and target validation for an unmet therapeutic need); pharmacological hypotheses (reviews that are oriented to inform a novel hypothesis); and replication studies (work that refutes key findings [failed replication] and work that validates key findings). PR&P publishes papers submitted directly to the journal and those referred from the journals of ASPET and the BPS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书