These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

561 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 29.