Martine Kruijtbosch

85 App l i cab i l i t y o f t he Au s t ra l i an Pro f es s i ona l E t h i c s i n Pha rmacy t es t compare their moral reasoning schemas. However, we as well performed a PCA without the supervisors, who are more experienced pharmacists. That analysis did not result in different moral reasoning schemas. Another limitation is that the PEP test had to be translated from the Australian into the Dutch language and both countries have different cultural backgrounds and (professional) guidance and language as explained above. For example some referrals to specific institutions mentioned in the PEP test statements had to be adapted and the function of these institutions may be different between countries. CONCLUSION We conclude that the PEP test, which was originally developed in Australia, needs to be further adapted to the context and professional language of Dutch pharmacy practice. The statements, especially those associated with the post-conventional level of moral reasoning, need adjustments in order to better reflect a moral reasoning schema that is based on professional ethics that guides pharmacists in the Netherlands. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We express our gratitude to all the pharmacists who participated in this study.