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 *

205 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19580681)

  • 1. An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: a descriptive analysis.
    Tarrant M; Ware J; Mohammed AM
    BMC Med Educ; 2009 Jul; 9():40. PubMed ID: 19580681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Using Automatic Item Generation to Improve the Quality of MCQ Distractors.
    Lai H; Gierl MJ; Touchie C; Pugh D; Boulais AP; De Champlain A
    Teach Learn Med; 2016; 28(2):166-73. PubMed ID: 26849247
    [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. 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]  

  • 5. The optimal number of options for multiple-choice questions on high-stakes tests: application of a revised index for detecting nonfunctional distractors.
    Raymond MR; Stevens C; Bucak SD
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2019 Mar; 24(1):141-150. PubMed ID: 30362027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison in the quality of distractors in three and four options type of multiple choice questions.
    Rahma NAA; Shamad MMA; Idris MEA; Elfaki OA; Elfakey WEM; Salih KMA
    Adv Med Educ Pract; 2017; 8():287-291. PubMed ID: 28442942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Relations of the Number of Functioning Distractors With the Item Difficulty Index and the Item Discrimination Power in the Multiple Choice Questions.
    Chauhan GR; Chauhan BR; Vaza JV; Chauhan PR
    Cureus; 2023 Jul; 15(7):e42492. PubMed ID: 37644928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Item analysis: the impact of distractor efficiency on the difficulty index and discrimination power of multiple-choice items.
    Rezigalla AA; Eleragi AMESA; Elhussein AB; Alfaifi J; ALGhamdi MA; Al Ameer AY; Yahia AIO; Mohammed OA; Adam MIE
    BMC Med Educ; 2024 Apr; 24(1):445. PubMed ID: 38658912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Analysis of one-best MCQs: the difficulty index, discrimination index and distractor efficiency.
    Hingorjo MR; Jaleel F
    J Pak Med Assoc; 2012 Feb; 62(2):142-7. PubMed ID: 22755376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Decreasing the options' number in multiple choice questions in the assessment of senior medical students and its effect on exam psychometrics and distractors' function.
    Al-Lawama M; Kumwenda B
    BMC Med Educ; 2023 Apr; 23(1):212. PubMed ID: 37016397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Quality of multiple-choice questions in medical internship qualification examination determined by item response theory at Debre Tabor University, Ethiopia.
    Belay LM; Sendekie TY; Eyowas FA
    BMC Med Educ; 2022 Aug; 22(1):635. PubMed ID: 35989323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Rarely selected distractors in high stakes medical multiple-choice examinations and their recognition by item authors: a simulation and survey.
    Rogausch A; Hofer R; Krebs R
    BMC Med Educ; 2010 Nov; 10():85. PubMed ID: 21106066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Item Analysis of Multiple Choice Questions at the Department of Paediatrics, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain.
    Kheyami D; Jaradat A; Al-Shibani T; Ali FA
    Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J; 2018 Feb; 18(1):e68-e74. PubMed ID: 29666684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Reducing the number of options on multiple-choice questions: response time, psychometrics and standard setting.
    Schneid SD; Armour C; Park YS; Yudkowsky R; Bordage G
    Med Educ; 2014 Oct; 48(10):1020-7. PubMed ID: 25200022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Writing Multiple Choice Questions-Has the Student Become the Master?
    Pham H; Court-Kowalski S; Chan H; Devitt P
    Teach Learn Med; 2023; 35(3):356-367. PubMed ID: 35491868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Psychometrics of Multiple Choice Questions with Non-Functioning Distracters: Implications to Medical Education.
    Deepak KK; Al-Umran KU; AI-Sheikh MH; Dkoli BV; Al-Rubaish A
    Indian J Physiol Pharmacol; 2015; 59(4):428-35. PubMed ID: 27530011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Item Analysis of Multiple-Choice Questions in Teaching Prosthodontics.
    Madhav VN
    J Dent Educ; 2015 Nov; 79(11):1314-9. PubMed ID: 26522636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Item analysis and optimizing multiple-choice questions for a viable question bank in ophthalmology: A cross-sectional study.
    Bhat SK; Prasad KHL
    Indian J Ophthalmol; 2021 Feb; 69(2):343-346. PubMed ID: 33463588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.