Skip to main content
Article
A Survey of Grading Scale Variations in Doctor of Pharmacy Programs
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching & Learning (2014)
  • David Baker
  • Eric C Nemec, II, Sacred Heart University
Abstract
Objectives
The first objective of this survey was to determine if there is a common grading scale utilized in Doctor of Pharmacy programs throughout the United States. Based on preliminary research, this question has not been addressed for professional pharmacy education. The study’s second objective was to begin to explore different aspects of grading scales used, academic freedom in grading, and the institutional breakdown of grading scales.

Methods
An online survey tool was developed and distributed to the School of Pharmacies’ respective Dean of Academic Affairs or alternate via e-mail to elicit responses. Subsequent second and third e-mail requests were sent at one-week intervals after a nonresponse.

Results
The net survey response rate was 61%. The overall study results determined that there was no grade scale predominately used by pharmacy schools or colleges, whether compared across all courses or across only specific type courses (didactic, laboratory, and experiential), and regardless of whether public or private, or what size the enrollment. There were significant consistencies in what constitutes a passing grade as well as the percentages that correlate to specific grades.

Conclusions
The results provide guidance for both established and new schools of pharmacy, in that any grading scale adoption is essentially acceptable among pharmacy schools. Future research should compare Doctor of Pharmacy program grading policies with other professional doctorate programs, to determine if other professional programs have developed common grading policies.
Keywords
  • grading scales,
  • assessment,
  • pharmacy programs
Publication Date
2014
DOI
10.1016/j.cptl.2013.11.010
Citation Information
Baker, D.M. & Nemec, E.C. (2014). A survey of grading scale variations in Doctor of Pharmacy programs. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching & Learning, 6(2), 194-202. doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2013.11.010