Physics is a compulsory component of many undergraduate pharmacy and health-science programmes, yet assessment practices in these courses often prioritise abstract problem formats that are weakly aligned with students’ professional contexts. From an assessment perspective, this raises a central validity concern: whether observed achievement reflects students’ understanding of physics concepts or primarily reflects their ability to respond to decontextualised task formats. Contemporary validity theory emphasises that the meaning of assessment outcomes depends on the plausibility of the interpretations and uses made from test scores, given the specific tasks, contexts, and intended purposes of assessment (Kane, 2016).

This study examines topic-specific assessment outcomes in an undergraduate physics course for pharmacy students, focusing on how performance varies across assessments with different contextual characteristics. The analysis contrasts a midterm examination centred on foundational mechanics with a final examination assessing applied physics topics relevant to pharmaceutical contexts. Rather than treating physics achievement as a single, generalisable construct, the study adopts a context-based assessment perspective, in which performance is understood as situated within specific task contexts and representational demands. Context-based assessment is understood as creating opportunities for resonance between classroom tasks and societal or professional fields, thereby shaping how students mobilise disciplinary knowledge in assessment situations (Bellocchi et al., 2016).

The study addresses the following research questions:

1. How does pharmacy students’ performance differ across physics topics assessed in foundational versus applied assessment contexts?
2. To what extent does performance on foundational physics topics predict achievement on applied, context-based physics topics?
3. What assessment profiles emerge when topic-level performance data are analysed across different assessment contexts?

The primary objective of the study is to contribute to the interpretation and validity of assessment outcomes in interdisciplinary higher education. In line with argument-based approaches to validity, assessment results are treated as evidence supporting particular interpretive claims about student achievement, rather than as direct indicators of stable or general ability (Kane, 2016).

By retaining topic-level scores rather than relying on aggregated exam totals, the study aims to provide a more nuanced account of what physics assessments capture in service-course contexts. Authentic assessment in higher education has been characterised by tasks that prioritise conceptual understanding, problem solving, and disciplinary relevance over procedural recall, particularly in STEM fields (Schultz et al., 2022).

Empirical work at the university level also indicates that context-based testing can reveal aspects of students’ conceptual understanding that remain obscured in conventional assessments, especially for non-science majors. Within this framework, different physics topics are treated as distinct assessment domains associated with varying symbolic, procedural, and contextual demands. Consequently, variation in student performance across topics is interpreted as meaningful assessment information rather than as measurement error.

The international relevance of the study lies in its focus on pharmacy education, a domain in which physics plays a foundational yet often under-recognised role. Recent work highlights the importance of aligning physics instruction and assessment with pharmaceutical applications to support systems thinking and professional relevance in pharmacy curricula (Dhina et al., 2024; Sakallı, 2024). By empirically examining how assessment context shapes observable achievement within a single course, this study contributes to broader discussions on assessment validity, contextual alignment, and fairness in interdisciplinary higher-education programmes.

The study employs a quantitative, observational research design based on assessment data collected from a compulsory undergraduate physics course for first-year pharmacy students at a private university. The course serves as a service module within the pharmacy curriculum and includes both foundational and applied physics content. The study involved 67 first-year undergraduate pharmacy students. Due to missing final examination data, one participant was excluded, yielding a final sample of 66 participants. Two formal assessment instruments were analysed: 1. Midterm Examination (Foundational Assessment Context): The midterm assessed core mechanics topics, including SI units, measurement, forces, one- and two-dimensional motion, torque–equilibrium, and rotational motion. Items were predominantly quantitative and required symbolic manipulation, vector reasoning, and procedural problem solving. These topics reflect traditional physics assessment practices commonly used in early undergraduate instruction. 2. Final Examination (Applied Assessment Context): The final exam assessed applied physics topics with clear relevance to pharmaceutical and health-science contexts, including static electricity, the Bernoulli principle, momentum–impulse, resistors, and capacitors. Tasks required students to apply physics concepts within contextualised scenarios and to integrate conceptual reasoning with quantitative analysis. Both examinations consisted of open-ended problem-solving items scored using standardised analytic rubrics. Rather than relying on total exam scores, topic-level scores were retained for analysis to preserve domain specificity and to support context-sensitive interpretation of achievement. Data analysis proceeded in three stages. First, descriptive statistics were computed to examine score distributions, central tendencies, and variability across topics and assessment contexts. Second, correlation analyses were conducted to explore relationships between foundational and applied topic scores, with particular attention to whether performance patterns were consistent across contexts. Third, an exploratory profile analysis was performed to identify groups of students exhibiting similar cross-topic achievement patterns, thereby supporting interpretation at the individual level. Given the sample size, the analysis focused exclusively on observed variables and avoided latent-variable modelling. This decision aligns with the study’s emphasis on interpretive clarity and assessment validity rather than generalisation or causal inference. All data were collected as part of regular course assessment. Ethical approval was not required under institutional guidelines, as the study involved secondary analysis of anonymised assessment data and posed no risk to participants.

The study is expected to demonstrate that pharmacy students’ physics achievement is highly sensitive to assessment context and topic domain, rather than being adequately represented by aggregate exam scores. Specifically, it is anticipated that student performance will differ systematically between assessments focused on foundational mechanics and those assessing applied, discipline-relevant physics topics. Preliminary patterns suggest that achievement in foundational mechanics will show only moderate alignment with performance in applied physics topics. A substantial proportion of students are expected to exhibit weaker performance in abstract, decontextualised mechanics tasks while demonstrating stronger achievement in applied contexts that align with pharmaceutical applications. This finding would support the interpretation that conventional foundational assessments may underestimate competencies that become visible when physics knowledge is assessed through context-based tasks. The analysis is also expected to identify distinct assessment profiles at the individual level. These profiles are likely to include: (1) students demonstrating consistently high performance across both foundational and applied topics; (2) students showing limited achievement in foundational mechanics but strong performance in applied contexts; and (3) students exhibiting persistent difficulties across both assessment contexts. The second profile is anticipated to be particularly prevalent, highlighting the interpretive limitations of relying solely on early, mechanics-heavy assessments in service courses. From an assessment perspective, these findings are expected to contribute to discussions on validity and fairness in interdisciplinary higher education. By showing that topic-level and context-sensitive analyses yield richer information about student achievement than total scores alone, the study underscores the importance of aligning assessment interpretation with task context and intended use. Overall, the study is expected to provide empirical support for context-aware interpretations of assessment outcomes, informing assessment design and evaluation practices in pharmacy and other health-science programmes across European higher-education contexts.

Bellocchi, A., King, D. T., & Ritchie, S. M. (2016). Context-based assessment: creating opportunities for resonance between classroom fields and societal fields. International Journal of Science Education, 38(8), 1304–1342. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1189107 Dhina, M. A., Kaniawati, I., Abdullah, A. G., & Hasanah, L. (2024). Physics in pharmacy education: A socio-technical inquiry into advancing systems thinking and generic science. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 19(4), 48–56. Kane, M. T. (2016). Explicating validity. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(2), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1060192 Sakallı, İ. (2024). Integral role of physics in advancing pharmacy education and research. EMU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 7(3), 122–132. https://doi.org/10.54994/emujpharmsci.1591115 Schultz, M., Young, K., Gunning, T. K., & Harvey, M. L. (2022). Defining and measuring authentic assessment: A case study in the context of tertiary science. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1887811