Medical EducationIDEPNCT05526365
Idea Density in Exam Performance
A study testing Reduced Idea Density in people with Medical Education and Health Education, run by Liverpool John Moores University at 1 site in United Kingdom.
Trial summary
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. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Medical Education, Health Education, Educational Assessment
- What is being tested?
- Reduced Idea Density
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 204 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited Kingdom
- Study dates
- 3 Oct 2022to 6 Dec 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- 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)
Who cannot join
- Under 18
- Not registered on an MPharm course in the UK
- Are currently undertaking a foundation year (level 3)
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United Kingdom1 site
Liverpool John Moores University
Liverpool, Merseyside, L3 3AF
About this study
Official title: Impact of Reduced Idea Density on Pharmacy Students' Attainment in Pharmaceutical Calculations: a Single-blind Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial
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.
Read the detailed description
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.
- Conditions
- Medical Education, Health Education, Educational Assessment
- Being tested
- Reduced Idea Density
- Keywords
- Pedagogy, Medical education, Assessment, Linguistics, Idea density
- Medical subject headings
- Health Education
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Reduced Idea DensityOther
Question idea density reduced (ratio of propositions to total words used).
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Control | No intervention | Participants in the control group will receive an initial 12 question baseline test (same as intervention). They will after two weeks receive a second test that is linguistically the same as the national GPhC exam. |
| Intervention | Experimental | Participants in the intervention group will receive an initial 12 question baseline test (same as control). They will after two weeks receive a second test that is reduced in idea density by around 10% overall. Receives: Other: Reduced Idea Density |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Overall performance on test 2
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.
Measured: 1 month
Secondary outcomes (2)
Pass rate
The percentage of students achieving a pass (equivalent to 70% or above) during the second test.
Measured: 1 month
Demographic
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
Measured: 1 month
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted2 Sep 2022
- Study start3 Oct 2022
- Primary completion6 Nov 2022
- Study completion6 Dec 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Medical EducationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Participants randomised to two arms, control and intervention
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 204 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Liverpool John Moores University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Central Lancashire, Aston University, University of Birmingham, University of Bradford, De Montfort University, University of Greenwich, University of Huddersfield, Kingston University, Newcastle University, Queen's University, Belfast, Robert Gordon University, University of Ulster, University of Wolverhampton
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Andrew Lunn, Liverpool John Moores University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05526365
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 22/PBS/004
- Acronym
- IDEP
- Status last verified
- Oct 2023
- First submitted
- 31 Aug 2022
- Last updated
- 10 Oct 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Study protocol to be published Original (anonymised) data to be placed on university repository
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 10 Oct 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Impact of Reduced Idea Density on Pharmacy Students' Attainment in Pharmaceutical Calculations: a Single-blind Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05526365
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IDEP / 22/PBS/004
- Conditions
- Medical Education, Health Education, Educational Assessment
- Keywords
- Pedagogy, Medical education, Assessment, Linguistics, Idea density
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 204 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Liverpool John Moores UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Central Lancashire, Aston University, University of Birmingham, University of Bradford, De Montfort University, University of Greenwich, University of Huddersfield, Kingston University, Newcastle University, Queen's University, Belfast, Robert Gordon University, University of Ulster, University of Wolverhampton
- Study start
- 3 Oct 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 6 Nov 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 6 Dec 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 2 Sep 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
Detailed description
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.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Participants randomised to two arms, control and intervention
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Control | No intervention | –Participants in the control group will receive an initial 12 question baseline test (same as intervention). They will after two weeks receive a second test that is linguistically the same as the national GPhC exam. |
| Intervention | Experimental | Other: Reduced Idea DensityParticipants in the intervention group will receive an initial 12 question baseline test (same as control). They will after two weeks receive a second test that is reduced in idea density by around 10% overall. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- 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)
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Under 18
- Not registered on an MPharm course in the UK
- Are currently undertaking a foundation year (level 3)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Reduced Idea DensityQuestion idea density reduced (ratio of propositions to total words used). | Other | Intervention |
Primary outcome
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.
2 secondary outcomes
Pass rate
Time frame: 1 month
Demographic
Time frame: 1 month
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 10 Oct 2023.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Study protocol to be published Original (anonymised) data to be placed on university repository
Related trials for Medical Education
Not yet recruiting
AI Smart Glasses Feedback for Intubation Training in Medical Students
Intubation, Intratracheal, Medical Education
Not yet recruiting
AI-Generated and Rule-Based Individualized Feedback for Medical Students' Nephrology Learning
Medical Education
Not yet recruiting
Low-Cost Model Versus Airway Part-Task Trainer for Flexible Bronchoscope-Guided Tracheal Intubation Training
Simulation Based Medical Education, Tracheal Intubation
Recruiting
Effect of Simulation-Based Postpartum Hemorrhage Training on Team Performance in Senior Anesthesiology Teams
Postpartum Hemorrhage, Simulation Based Medical Education
Not yet recruiting
Evidence Based Education in Thoracic Ultrasound
Medical Education in Thoracic Ultrasound
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Reduced Idea Density in people with Medical Education and Health Education, run by Liverpool John Moores University at 1 site in United Kingdom.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 10 Oct 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United Kingdom. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Overall performance on test 2 (time frame: 1 month). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 10 Oct 2023; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 28 Oct 2026.