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 *

274 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19117221)

  • 41. Setting and maintaining standards in multiple choice examinations: guide supplement 37.1--Viewpoint.
    Van der Vleuten C
    Med Teach; 2010; 32(2):174-6. PubMed ID: 20163238
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. A primer on classical test theory and item response theory for assessments in medical education.
    De Champlain AF
    Med Educ; 2010 Jan; 44(1):109-17. PubMed ID: 20078762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Exploring differences in individual and group judgements in standard setting.
    Yeates P; Cope N; Luksaite E; Hassell A; Dikomitis L
    Med Educ; 2019 Sep; 53(9):941-952. PubMed ID: 31264741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Setting standards in knowledge assessments: Comparing Ebel and Cohen via Rasch.
    Homer M; Darling JC
    Med Teach; 2016 Dec; 38(12):1267-1277. PubMed ID: 27650218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. The practical value of the standard error of measurement in borderline pass/fail decisions.
    Hays R; Gupta TS; Veitch J
    Med Educ; 2008 Aug; 42(8):810-5. PubMed ID: 18564094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Relative or Absolute Standards in Assessing Medical Knowledge Using Progress Tests.
    Muijtjens AM; Hoogenboom RJ; Verwijnen GM; Van Der Vleuten CP
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 1998; 3(2):81-87. PubMed ID: 12386445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Cut-scores revisited: feasibility of a new method for group standard setting.
    Shulruf B; Coombes L; Damodaran A; Freeman A; Jones P; Lieberman S; Poole P; Rhee J; Wilkinson T; Harris P
    BMC Med Educ; 2018 Jun; 18(1):126. PubMed ID: 29879954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Estimation of decision consistency indices for complex assessments: model based approaches.
    Stearns M; Smith RM
    J Appl Meas; 2008; 9(3):305-15. PubMed ID: 18753697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Competency assessment in simulation-based procedural education.
    Michelson JD; Manning L
    Am J Surg; 2008 Oct; 196(4):609-15. PubMed ID: 18614142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Standard-setting plans for the NBME comprehensive Part I and Part II examinations.
    Nungester RJ; Dillon GF; Swanson DB; Orr NA; Powell RD
    Acad Med; 1991 Aug; 66(8):429-33. PubMed ID: 1883423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. The Objective Borderline method (OBM): a probability-based model for setting up an objective pass/fail cut-off score in medical programme assessments.
    Shulruf B; Turner R; Poole P; Wilkinson T
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2013 May; 18(2):231-44. PubMed ID: 22484963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Are specialist certification examinations a reliable measure of physician competence?
    Burch VC; Norman GR; Schmidt HG; van der Vleuten CP
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2008 Nov; 13(4):521-33. PubMed ID: 17476579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Whose criterion standard is it anyway?
    Stone GE
    J Appl Meas; 2006; 7(2):160-9. PubMed ID: 16632899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Setting school-level outcome standards.
    Stern DT; Friedman Ben-David M; Norcini J; Wojtczak A; Schwarz MR
    Med Educ; 2006 Feb; 40(2):166-72. PubMed ID: 16451245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Psychometric aspects of item mapping for criterion-referenced interpretation and bookmark standard setting.
    Huynh H
    J Appl Meas; 2010; 11(1):91-8. PubMed ID: 20351450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Turning words into numbers: establishing an empirical cut score for a letter graded examination.
    Burch VC; Norman GR
    Med Teach; 2009 May; 31(5):442-6. PubMed ID: 18608946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Setting and maintaining standards in multiple-choice examinations: guide supplement 37.2 - viewpoint.
    De Champlain AF
    Med Teach; 2010; 32(5):436-7. PubMed ID: 20423267
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. A Mapmark method of standard setting as implemented for the National Assessment Governing Board.
    Schulz EM; Mitzel HC
    J Appl Meas; 2011; 12(2):165-93. PubMed ID: 22089512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Standard setting: comparison of two methods.
    George S; Haque MS; Oyebode F
    BMC Med Educ; 2006 Sep; 6():46. PubMed ID: 16972990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Focus on quantitative methods. Determining cut-off scores.
    Goodwin LD
    Res Nurs Health; 1996 Jun; 19(3):249-56. PubMed ID: 8628913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.