Introduction: This study assessed student perceptions, preparation, and result use strategies of the Pharmacy Curriculum Outcomes Assessment (PCOA). Secondarily, it studied the effect of schools/colleges of pharmacy (S/COP) PCOA management on student perceptions. Methods: A 52-item electronic questionnaire assessed PCOA preparation of final year students, review/use of results, remediation participation, self-reported motivation, and perceptions of the exam's ability to measure PCOA blueprint areas and North American Pharmacy Licensure Examination (NAPLEX)/advanced pharmacy practice experience (APPE) readiness. Programs were given a questionnaire to determine their PCOA practices. Results: The student survey was completed by 341 students (40% response rate). Students prepared very little for the PCOA and few reported participation in PCOA-based remediation (6%). Students perceived the PCOA to measure the four domains moderately well, although administrative sciences were significantly lower. Students reported less confidence in the exam's ability to measure APPE/NAPLEX-readiness. Although few used the PCOA to guide their NAPLEX preparation (18%), they were more likely to do so than for APPEs (4%). Students reported a higher perceived increase in motivation if PCOA results were connected to APPE placement, remediation, and progression as opposed to prizes, rewards, or other recognitions. Conclusion: This is the first multi-institutional study to review student perceptions about the PCOA. These data can be used along with other PCOA data to help schools develop incentive, remediation, and examination administration procedures depending on the programs desired use for the PCOA exam.

This study explored the concept of student remediation in counseling graduate programs by examining the behavioral indicators associated with student remediation, the terminology used to discuss student remediation, and remedial interventions and their effectiveness. Members of the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES) were electronically surveyed using a researcher-designed instrument, the Counseling Graduate Student Remediation Questionnaire. A total of 607 individuals participated in the study for a response rate of 28.8%. The results of this study indicated that the overall five behavioral indicators considered by participants as needing remediation were the following: receptivity to feedback; basic counseling skills; boundaries with clients, supervisors, and/or colleagues; openness to self-examination; and advanced counseling skills. Five factors were identified within the behavioral indicators based on which can be remediated: Factor I, Personal Competencies; Factor II, Professionalism; Factor III, Personal Challenges; Factor IV, Honesty; and Factor V, Clinical Competencies. Significant group differences were found between counselor educators' and doctoral students' perceptions of what needs remediation with counseling graduate students, as well as what can be remediated with students. Significant group differences also were present between administrative faculty and non-administrative faculty on perceptions of what needs remediation with students. The overall three most preferred terms by participants used to discuss students in remediation included: challenging, problems with professional competence, and problematic. For remedial interventions, participants perceived that increased supervision was often effective as an intervention and that referring or recommending to personal counseling was occasionally effective. The results of this study seemed indicative of a broadening perspective regarding the topic of remediation, with perceptions shifting toward a positive framework rather than the more pejorative historical approaches. Overall, the conclusion from this study was that student remediation is currently developing within the field as a distinct concept with many specific associated behavioral indicators, terminology, and interventions.

Doctor of Philosophy / Department of Family Studies and Human Services / Anthony Jurich / Within the field of medicine and clinical/counseling psychology, there has been an overabundance of research and literature devoted to specific areas of focus such as trainee impairment, remediation, and dismissal procedures. Although literature does exist in relation to the specific types of remediation methods being used by graduate training programs, no research to date, however, has addressed what types of remediation methods would be most effective in response to the various types of impairment experienced by therapists-in-training (Russell & Peterson, 2003; Forrest et al., 1997). Using a modified version of the Delphi method, the present study seeks to bridge this existing gap by exploring the types of remediation methods deemed most effective for the specific types of impairment experienced by trainees within master’s and doctoral level accredited Marriage and Family Therapy graduate training programs. The purpose of the study was to answer the following questions: 1. What, given a list of impairments and remediation methods would, supervisors and/or professors within MFT graduate training programs list as the most effective type of remediation method for a specific type of impairment? 2. Given the initial answers of experts, once they are provided the answers from their colleagues, can they come to a greater consensus about the most effective remediation methods for specific types of impairment? Those remediation methods chosen by panelists that had a median of 6.00 to 7.00 and interquartile range of 0.00 to 1.50 made the final profile. Results indicated that, given the initial answers of experts, the panel of experts was able to reach a greater consensus about which types of remediation methods they deemed most effective in responding to the corresponding types of impairment. Furthermore, during the first phase of questioning, the panel of experts also generated relevant commentaries with regard to responding to student impairment. Finally, limitations and directions for future research are discussed.