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 *

745 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17014932)

  • 1. The frequency of item writing flaws in multiple-choice questions used in high stakes nursing assessments.
    Tarrant M; Knierim A; Hayes SK; Ware J
    Nurse Educ Today; 2006 Dec; 26(8):662-71. PubMed ID: 17014932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The frequency of item writing flaws in multiple-choice questions used in high stakes nursing assessments.
    Tarrant M; Knierim A; Hayes SK; Ware J
    Nurse Educ Pract; 2006 Dec; 6(6):354-63. PubMed ID: 19040902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Impact of item-writing flaws in multiple-choice questions on student achievement in high-stakes nursing assessments.
    Tarrant M; Ware J
    Med Educ; 2008 Feb; 42(2):198-206. PubMed ID: 18230093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. High time for a change: psychometric analysis of multiple-choice questions in nursing.
    Redmond SP; Hartigan-Rogers JA; Cobbett S
    Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh; 2012 Nov; 9():. PubMed ID: 23192053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Quality assurance of item writing: during the introduction of multiple choice questions in medicine for high stakes examinations.
    Ware J; Vik T
    Med Teach; 2009 Mar; 31(3):238-43. PubMed ID: 18825568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Assessment of item-writing flaws in multiple-choice questions.
    Nedeau-Cayo R; Laughlin D; Rus L; Hall J
    J Nurses Prof Dev; 2013; 29(2):52-7; quiz E1-2. PubMed ID: 23657034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A comparison of the psychometric properties of three- and four-option multiple-choice questions in nursing assessments.
    Tarrant M; Ware J
    Nurse Educ Today; 2010 Aug; 30(6):539-43. PubMed ID: 20053488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Education techniques for lifelong learning: writing multiple-choice questions for continuing medical education activities and self-assessment modules.
    Collins J
    Radiographics; 2006; 26(2):543-51. PubMed ID: 16549616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Flaws of Multiple Choice Questions in Teacher-Constructed Nursing Examinations: A Pilot Descriptive Study.
    Hijji BM
    J Nurs Educ; 2017 Aug; 56(8):490-496. PubMed ID: 28787072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Developing and evaluating innovative items for the NCLEX: Part 2, item characteristics and cognitive processing.
    Wendt A; Harmes JC
    Nurse Educ; 2009; 34(3):109-13. PubMed ID: 19412048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The effects of violating standard item writing principles on tests and students: the consequences of using flawed test items on achievement examinations in medical education.
    Downing SM
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2005; 10(2):133-43. PubMed ID: 16078098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The evaluation of students' reflective writing for evidence of critical thinking.
    Kennison MM
    Nurs Educ Perspect; 2006; 27(5):269-73. PubMed ID: 17036685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The effects of linguistic modification on ESL students' comprehension of nursing course test items.
    Bosher S; Bowles M
    Nurs Educ Perspect; 2008; 29(3):165-72. PubMed ID: 18575241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluating reflective writing for appropriateness, fairness, and consistency.
    Kennison MM; Misselwitz S
    Nurs Educ Perspect; 2002; 23(5):238-42. PubMed ID: 12483814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. How to read and really use an item analysis.
    McGahee TW; Ball J
    Nurse Educ; 2009; 34(4):166-71. PubMed ID: 19574855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Multiple choice questions: a literature review on the optimal number of options.
    Vyas R; Supe A
    Natl Med J India; 2008; 21(3):130-3. PubMed ID: 19004145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Critical thinking ability of associate, baccalaureate and RN-BSN senior students in Korea.
    Shin S; Ha J; Shin K; Davis MK
    Nurs Outlook; 2006; 54(6):328-33. PubMed ID: 17142151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Will a Short Training Session Improve Multiple-Choice Item-Writing Quality by Dental School Faculty? A Pilot Study.
    Dellinges MA; Curtis DA
    J Dent Educ; 2017 Aug; 81(8):948-955. PubMed ID: 28765439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Investigating the potential influence of established multiple-choice test-taking cues on item response in a pharmacotherapy board certification examination preparatory manual: a pilot study.
    Gettig JP
    Pharmacotherapy; 2006 Apr; 26(4):558-62. PubMed ID: 16553516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Nursing students' knowledge and attitudes regarding pain.
    Plaisance L; Logan C
    Pain Manag Nurs; 2006 Dec; 7(4):167-75. PubMed ID: 17145491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 38.