Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT05526365

Idea Density in Exam Performance

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.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Medical Education Adherence Interventions Behavior Educational Assessment Health Behavior Health Education Medication Adherence Patient Acceptance of Health Care Patient Compliance Treatment Adherence and Compliance

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Liverpool John Moores University

Liverpool, Merseyside, L3 3AF, United Kingdom

About this study

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.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

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)

Treatment and study plan

Reduced Idea Density

Other

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

Primary outcomes

  1. Overall performance on test 2

    Time frame: 1 month

    The primary outcome is the performance in the second calculation test 2. Overall score per student can be between 0-12, and performance of all students on each question a decimal percent between 0-1, with 0 meaning 0% of students answered correctly and 1 meaning 100% of students answered correctly.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Pass rate

    Time frame: 1 month

    The percentage of students achieving a pass (equivalent to 70% or above) during the second test.

  2. Demographic

    Time frame: 1 month

    The effect of each demographic characteristic on students' attainment in pharmacy calculation when lowering idea density?

    • First language speaker (English as the first language) or not
    • Age
    • Ethnicity
    • Year of study
    • Specific learning disability

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Liverpool John Moores University

Other

Collaborators

  • Aston University
  • De Montfort University
  • Kingston University
  • Newcastle University
  • Queen's University, Belfast
  • Robert Gordon University
  • University of Birmingham
  • University of Bradford
  • University of Central Lancashire
  • University of Greenwich
  • University of Huddersfield
  • University of Ulster
  • University of Wolverhampton

Registry information

Official study title

Impact of Reduced Idea Density on Pharmacy Students' Attainment in Pharmaceutical Calculations: a Single-blind Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial

Acronym: IDEP

Important dates

Study start
2022
Primary completion
2022
Study completion
2022
First posted
Sep 2, 2022
Registry last updated
Oct 10, 2023

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.