BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

546 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10336757)

  • 1. The effect of a 'don't know' option on test scores: number-right and formula scoring compared.
    Muijtjens AM; Mameren HV; Hoogenboom RJ; Evers JL; van der Vleuten CP
    Med Educ; 1999 Apr; 33(4):267-75. PubMed ID: 10336757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Multiple-choice testing in anatomy.
    Nnodim JO
    Med Educ; 1992 Jul; 26(4):301-9. PubMed ID: 1630332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Multiple choice questions: to guess or not to guess.
    McG Harden R; Brown RA; Biran LA; Ross WP; Wakeford RE
    Med Educ; 1976 Jan; 10(1):27-32. PubMed ID: 1263885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of formula and number-right scoring in undergraduate medical training: a Rasch model analysis.
    Cecilio-Fernandes D; Medema H; Collares CF; Schuwirth L; Cohen-Schotanus J; Tio RA
    BMC Med Educ; 2017 Nov; 17(1):192. PubMed ID: 29121888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The don't know option in progress testing.
    Ravesloot CJ; Van der Schaaf MF; Muijtjens AM; Haaring C; Kruitwagen CL; Beek FJ; Bakker J; Van Schaik JP; Ten Cate TJ
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2015 Dec; 20(5):1325-38. PubMed ID: 25912621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A randomized controlled trial comparing instructions regarding unsafe response options in a MCQ examination.
    Tweed M; Wilkinson T
    Med Teach; 2009 Jan; 31(1):51-4. PubMed ID: 18825569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evidence-based decision about test scoring rules in clinical anatomy multiple-choice examinations.
    Severo M; Gaio AR; Povo A; Silva-Pereira F; Ferreira MA
    Anat Sci Educ; 2015; 8(3):242-8. PubMed ID: 25053378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Psychometric validation of the Reported and Intended Behaviour Scale (RIBS) in Hungary with a particular focus on 'Don't know' responses and further scoring recommendations.
    Őri D; Vass E; Vajsz K; Vincze K; Sztancsik V; Szemán-Nagy A; Simon L
    BMC Public Health; 2023 Sep; 23(1):1773. PubMed ID: 37700224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A reappraisal of the use of the phi-coefficient in multiple choice examinations.
    Koeslag JH; Schach SR; Melzer CW
    Med Educ; 1987 Jan; 21(1):46-52. PubMed ID: 3821601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Multiple choice questions revisited.
    Anderson J
    Med Teach; 2004 Mar; 26(2):110-3. PubMed ID: 15203517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Progress testing in undergraduate dental education: the Peninsula experience and future opportunities.
    Ali K; Coombes L; Kay E; Tredwin C; Jones G; Ricketts C; Bennett J
    Eur J Dent Educ; 2016 Aug; 20(3):129-34. PubMed ID: 25874344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Pick-N multiple choice-exams: a comparison of scoring algorithms.
    Bauer D; Holzer M; Kopp V; Fischer MR
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2011 May; 16(2):211-21. PubMed ID: 21038082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluating and improving multiple choice papers: true-false questions in public health medicine.
    Dixon RA
    Med Educ; 1994 Sep; 28(5):400-8. PubMed ID: 7845259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Multiple true-false items: a comparison of scoring algorithms.
    Lahner FM; Lörwald AC; Bauer D; Nouns ZM; Krebs R; Guttormsen S; Fischer MR; Huwendiek S
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2018 Aug; 23(3):455-463. PubMed ID: 29189963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effect of different scoring approaches upon credit assignment when using Multiple True-False items in dental undergraduate examinations.
    Kanzow P; Schuelper N; Witt D; Wassmann T; Sennhenn-Kirchner S; Wiegand A; Raupach T
    Eur J Dent Educ; 2018 Nov; 22(4):e669-e678. PubMed ID: 29934980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A little bias goes a long way: the effects of feedback on the strategic regulation of accuracy on formula-scored tests.
    Arnold MM; Higham PA; Martín-Luengo B
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2013 Dec; 19(4):383-402. PubMed ID: 24341319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Method for calculating the distribution of randomly expected scores in a false-true-do not know-type of test].
    Pérez-Padilla JR; Viniegra Velázquez L
    Rev Invest Clin; 1989; 41(4):375-9. PubMed ID: 2631171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Penalties in multiple-choice and true-false questions.
    Koeslag JH; Melzer CW; Schach SR
    S Afr Med J; 1983 Jan; 63(1):20-2. PubMed ID: 6849146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Education-based disparities in knowledge of novel health risks: The case of knowledge gaps in HIV risk perceptions.
    Kiviniemi MT; Orom H; Waters EA; McKillip M; Hay JL
    Br J Health Psychol; 2018 May; 23(2):420-435. PubMed ID: 29388364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Answering MCQs: a study of confidence amongst medical students.
    Rogers MS; Chung T; Li A
    Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 1992 May; 32(2):133-6. PubMed ID: 1520198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 28.