Assessing behavioural skills in pharmacy education: a scoping review of instruments and evaluation practices.

IF 2.5 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Julia Weber, Kirsty Freeman, Samuel Allemann, Rhonda Clifford, Liza Seubert
{"title":"Assessing behavioural skills in pharmacy education: a scoping review of instruments and evaluation practices.","authors":"Julia Weber, Kirsty Freeman, Samuel Allemann, Rhonda Clifford, Liza Seubert","doi":"10.1093/ijpp/riag139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This scoping review aimed to map assessment instruments used to evaluate behavioural skills in pharmacy education and to identify gaps in assessment approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines. Seven databases were searched. Peer-reviewed studies published between 1999 and 2025 were included. Sources were screened and reviewed, and data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Findings were presented in tables with a narrative synthesis of patterns and gaps.</p><p><strong>Key findings: </strong>Thirty instruments assessing behavioural skills were identified. Communication was assessed in 21 instruments, while teamwork was assessed in five and professionalism and safety in three each. Among other skills, decision-making and prioritization and critical thinking and problem-solving were each assessed in one instrument. The number of behavioural markers varied widely (2-75), and similar behaviours were often described differently across instruments. Validity evidence was reported in 18 instruments. Most instruments used unanchored ordinal rating scales (19), and five included a qualitative feedback option. Overall, 23 instruments assessed a single skill, while seven assessed multiple skills.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Behavioural skills assessment in pharmacy education mainly focuses on communication. Marker definitions vary across instruments and reporting of validity and rating scale design is limited. Current instruments therefore capture only part of the behavioural skills expected in practice. Clearer definitions, broader assessment approaches, and improved reporting can help strengthen behavioural skill assessment in pharmacy education.</p>","PeriodicalId":14284,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpp/riag139","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This scoping review aimed to map assessment instruments used to evaluate behavioural skills in pharmacy education and to identify gaps in assessment approaches.

Methods: The review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines. Seven databases were searched. Peer-reviewed studies published between 1999 and 2025 were included. Sources were screened and reviewed, and data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Findings were presented in tables with a narrative synthesis of patterns and gaps.

Key findings: Thirty instruments assessing behavioural skills were identified. Communication was assessed in 21 instruments, while teamwork was assessed in five and professionalism and safety in three each. Among other skills, decision-making and prioritization and critical thinking and problem-solving were each assessed in one instrument. The number of behavioural markers varied widely (2-75), and similar behaviours were often described differently across instruments. Validity evidence was reported in 18 instruments. Most instruments used unanchored ordinal rating scales (19), and five included a qualitative feedback option. Overall, 23 instruments assessed a single skill, while seven assessed multiple skills.

Conclusions: Behavioural skills assessment in pharmacy education mainly focuses on communication. Marker definitions vary across instruments and reporting of validity and rating scale design is limited. Current instruments therefore capture only part of the behavioural skills expected in practice. Clearer definitions, broader assessment approaches, and improved reporting can help strengthen behavioural skill assessment in pharmacy education.

评估行为技能在药学教育:范围审查的工具和评估实践。
目的:这个范围审查的目的是绘制评估工具用于评估行为技能在药学教育和确定差距的评估方法。方法:采用乔安娜布里格斯研究所的方法和《系统评价和荟萃分析扩展范围评价报告指南的首选报告项目》进行综述。检索了7个数据库。其中包括1999年至2025年间发表的同行评议研究。对来源进行筛选和审查,并由两名独立审稿人提取数据。调查结果以表格形式提出,以叙述方式综合了模式和差距。主要发现:确定了30种评估行为技能的工具。沟通用21项指标进行评估,团队合作用5项,专业性和安全性各用3项。除其他技能外,决策和优先排序以及批判性思维和解决问题都是用一种工具评估的。行为标记的数量差异很大(2-75),相似的行为往往在不同的工具中被不同地描述。在18个仪器中报告了有效性证据。大多数工具使用无锚定的顺序评定量表(19),其中5个包括定性反馈选项。总的来说,有23个工具评估单一技能,而7个评估多种技能。结论:药学教育中的行为技能评估主要侧重于沟通。标记的定义因仪器而异,效度报告和量表设计有限。因此,目前的工具只能捕捉到实践中所期望的部分行为技能。更明确的定义、更广泛的评估方法和改进的报告可以帮助加强药学教育中的行为技能评估。
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
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Pharmacy Practice (IJPP) is a Medline-indexed, peer reviewed, international journal. It is one of the leading journals publishing health services research in the context of pharmacy, pharmaceutical care, medicines and medicines management. Regular sections in the journal include, editorials, literature reviews, original research, personal opinion and short communications. Topics covered include: medicines utilisation, medicine management, medicines distribution, supply and administration, pharmaceutical services, professional and patient/lay perspectives, public health (including, e.g. health promotion, needs assessment, health protection) evidence based practice, pharmacy education. Methods include both evaluative and exploratory work including, randomised controlled trials, surveys, epidemiological approaches, case studies, observational studies, and qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups. Application of methods drawn from other disciplines e.g. psychology, health economics, morbidity are especially welcome as are developments of new methodologies.
×
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