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.
7. Comparison between computer-aided testing and traditional multiple choice: an equivalence study. Karl M; Graef F; Eitner S; Beck N; Wichmann M; Holst S Eur J Dent Educ; 2007 Feb; 11(1):38-41. PubMed ID: 17227394 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparing narrative and multiple-choice formats in online communication skill assessment. Kim S; Spielberg F; Mauksch L; Farber S; Duong C; Fitch W; Greer T Med Educ; 2009 Jun; 43(6):533-41. PubMed ID: 19493177 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Should essays and other "open-ended"-type questions retain a place in written summative assessment in clinical medicine? Hift RJ BMC Med Educ; 2014 Nov; 14():249. PubMed ID: 25431359 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Knowing when to look it up: a new conception of self-assessment ability. Eva KW; Regehr G Acad Med; 2007 Oct; 82(10 Suppl):S81-4. PubMed ID: 17895699 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Sources of validity evidence for an internal medicine student evaluation system: an evaluative study of assessment methods. Auewarakul C; Downing SM; Jaturatamrong U; Praditsuwan R Med Educ; 2005 Mar; 39(3):276-83. PubMed ID: 15733163 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [The comparison of 4th, 5th and 6th year medical students knowledge of rules and practical skills in the interpretation of electrocardiograms at Jagiellonian University]. Pudło J; Wierdak M; Macioł K; Gumul K; Lelakowski J Przegl Lek; 2012; 69(4):143-8. PubMed ID: 23029708 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of long-menu and single-best-answer multiple choice questions in computer-based summative assessments: a randomised controlled trial. Cerutti B; Stollar F; Escher M; Blondon K; Aujesky S; Nendaz M; Galetto-Lacour A BMC Med Educ; 2019 Jun; 19(1):219. PubMed ID: 31215430 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A comparative study of students' performance in preclinical physiology assessed by multiple choice and short essay questions. Oyebola DD; Adewoye OE; Iyaniwura JO; Alada AR; Fasanmade AA; Raji Y Afr J Med Med Sci; 2000; 29(3-4):201-5. PubMed ID: 11713989 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of different MCQ-scoring-system in a medical school. Ahmed ME; Michail M East Afr Med J; 1993 Dec; 70(12):787-8. PubMed ID: 8026353 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany. Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J Eur J Health Econ; 2008 Nov; 9 Suppl 1():5-29. PubMed ID: 18987905 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Assessment of medical communication skills by computer: assessment method and student experiences. Hulsman RL; Mollema ED; Hoos AM; de Haes JC; Donnison-Speijer JD Med Educ; 2004 Aug; 38(8):813-24. PubMed ID: 15271041 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Design principles for virtual patients: a focus group study among students. Huwendiek S; Reichert F; Bosse HM; de Leng BA; van der Vleuten CP; Haag M; Hoffmann GF; Tönshoff B Med Educ; 2009 Jun; 43(6):580-8. PubMed ID: 19493183 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. First-year medical students' assessment of their own communication skills: a video-based, open-ended approach. Zick A; Granieri M; Makoul G Patient Educ Couns; 2007 Oct; 68(2):161-6. PubMed ID: 17640843 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]