At the Pharmacovigilance symposium held in London on 26th March, a delegate asked how the MHRA would recommend that small companies assess the effectiveness of training. The response was clear:
1. There should be a process in place to check that training results in the appropriate level of understanding or to identify unmet training needs
2. This applies to all types of organisations
3. One method they recommend to do this is using a short exam.
The need for appropriate training has long been enshrined in the ICH’s Good Clinical Practice guidelines, and this is coupled with a need to prove that training has taken place. But what good is training without learning?
At its simplest, education is split into teaching (the transfer of knowledge) and learning (the acquisition of knowledge). Exams are probably the simplest way to assess the degree of learning.
Exam results don’t necessarily indicate the quality of the learner or even the quality of teaching. What they can reliably do is indicate the degree of match between the teaching and learning process.
However, it is important to separate learning a subject with learning to pass an exam. Online training courses often use exams to test comprehension, but there is a danger here. If you can sit the exam repeatedly until you pass, won’t you just end up learning the answers without necessarily having any underlying appreciation of the subject?
One way around this is to draw the questions from a wider pool so each sitting of the exam is different. As long as you have a large enough pool of questions to draw from this can be very effective but it’s important to make sure that the vagaries of chance won’t mean one learner has an easier exam than others. Also, most exams are designed to test understanding in several core areas. How can this be achieved with a random exam?
The technique we use for our Whitehall Training GCP, GDP, GMP and pharmacovigilance courses is to divide the subject into key topics and then randomly select a set number of questions from each topic. Apart from guaranteeing a balanced exam, it has the added benefit of giving training managers a picture of the areas where their learners may need extra help. Ideal when planning future training.
Exams have another benefit, especially in the clinical trials sector. Properly designed certificates can provide proof that employees and contractors have not only taken training relevant to their roles, but have learned from it. Auditors look much more favourably on certificates awarded for passing an exam than those given purely for attending training.
No-one enjoys exams but they really are a necessary evil.
We appreciate your interest in this blog and would really like to know your views. Is this entry bang on the nail or widely off topic? How do you prefer to gauge the success of training? Please leave any of your questions or comments below. We’ll review and comment regularly.
