1. Predicting PANCE performance by student attendance and engagement with a board review course
Introduction
The Physician Assistant National Certifying Exam (PANCE) is necessary for Physician Assistant (PA) program graduates to practice their profession. As such, it is a “high stakes’ assessment”1 (p.42). We have some assessments that have been helpful in predicting PANCE performance in PAEA End of Rotation exams and the PACKRAT, but we have not identified any specific pedagogical interventions that offer a benefit to PANCE scores when those students are identified.
Idaho State University and University of Utah both offered a PANCE board review course for their 2015 graduating cohort for the first time in their programs’ histories. The previous analysis currently under consideration for publication showed no statistical improvement for these cohorts.
Even though we identified no statistical significance with the board review course alone, we did observe that attendance and engagement in the course were the most significant factors in how students performed on the PANCE.
Alan K. Mirly, M.B.A., PA-C, Idaho State University,
Jennie Coombs, Ph.D., PA-C, University of Utah,
& Melanie M. Domenech Rodríguez, Ph.D., Utah State University
I. Introduction
The Physician Assistant National Certifying Exam (PANCE) is necessary for Physician Assistant (PA) program graduates to practice their profession. As such, it is a “high stakes’ assessment”. We have some assessments that have been helpful in predicting PANCE performance in PAEA End of Rotation exams and the PACKRAT, but we have not identified any specific pedagogical interventions that offer a benefit to PANCE scores when those students are identified.
Idaho State University and University of Utah both offered a PANCE board review course for their 2015 graduating cohort for the first time in their programs’ histories. The previous analysis currently under consideration for publication showed no statistical improvement for these cohorts.
Even though we identified no statistical significance with the board review course alone, we did observe that attendance and engagement in the course were the most significant factors in how students performed on the PANCE.
II. Methods
Students enrolled in their graduate programs in the fall of 2012 and 2013 and graduated in 2014 and 2015 respectively. The final dataset was comprised of 116 students at ISU and 85 students at UU
ISU students were on one of two campuses, Pocatello, ID and Meridian, ID. UU students were in one campus in Salt Lake City, UT.
In the 2014 cohort, no students took a program sponsored board review test. They may have independently engaged a board preparation course.
In the 2015 cohort, students across campuses took the board review course (a) on-site, in a Salt Lake City hotel conference center, (b) at a common remote classroom location (i.e., ISU or UU classroom), or (c) a private remote site (e.g., home).
III. Results
Analysis showed that, overall, there was no benefit or harm of the PANCE board review course and those students that were at risk showed no increased benefit of the board review course than those that were not at risk.
IV. Conclusions
While there is no statistical significance with these data, there appears to be a linear relationship between number of practice exams taken and the mean score on the PANCE. This particularly held true for ISU. ISU scored lower overall on the PANCE and the previous PACKRAT so they might have experienced a slightly greater effect from the practice exams
Participants
Idaho State
University of Utah
Men (n) 55 39
Women (n) 61 46
Mage
32.59
31.08
SDage
7.27
6.42
In the 2014 cohort, no students took a program sponsored board review test. They may have independently engaged a board preparation course.
In the 2015 cohort, students across campuses took the board review course (a) on-site, in a Salt Lake City hotel conference center, (b) at a common remote classroom location (i.e., ISU or UU classroom), or (c) a private remote site (e.g., home).
III. Results
Analysis showed that, overall, there was no benefit or harm of the PANCE board review course and those students that were at risk showed no increased benefit of the board review course than those that were not at risk.
IV. Conclusions
While there is no statistical significance with these data, there appears to be a linear relationship between number of practice exams taken and the mean score on the PANCE. This particularly held true for ISU. ISU scored lower overall on the PANCE and the previous PACKRAT so they might have experienced a slightly greater effect from the practice exams
II. Methods
Students enrolled in their graduate programs in the fall of 2012 and 2013 and graduated in 2014 and 2015 respectively. The final dataset was comprised of 116 students at ISU and 85 students at UU
ISU students were on one of two campuses, Pocatello, ID and Meridian, ID. UU students were in one campus in Salt Lake City, UT.