91 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2045351)
1. Comparability of decisions for computer adaptive and written examinations.
Lunz ME; Bergstrom BA
J Allied Health; 1991; 20(1):15-23. PubMed ID: 2045351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A computerized adaptive knowledge test as an assessment tool in general practice: a pilot study.
Roex A; Degryse J
Med Teach; 2004 Mar; 26(2):178-83. PubMed ID: 15203528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The second time around: accounting for retest effects on oral examinations.
Raymond MR; Luciw-Dubas UA
Eval Health Prof; 2010 Sep; 33(3):386-403. PubMed ID: 20801978
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Examinations and exercises in medical technology utilizing a personal computer and the web].
Niwa T
Rinsho Byori; 2006 Mar; 54(3):279-85. PubMed ID: 16637577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The effect of item pool restriction on the precision of ability measurement for a Rasch-based CAT: comparisons to traditional fixed length examinations.
Halkitis PN
J Outcome Meas; 1998; 2(2):97-122. PubMed ID: 9661734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A computer assisted test assembly system for medical technology examinations.
Gleich CS
Am J Med Technol; 1979 Jul; 45(7):640-4. PubMed ID: 474611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. On the reliability of a dental OSCE, using SEM: effect of different days.
Schoonheim-Klein M; Muijtjens A; Habets L; Manogue M; Van der Vleuten C; Hoogstraten J; Van der Velden U
Eur J Dent Educ; 2008 Aug; 12(3):131-7. PubMed ID: 18666893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Setting and maintaining standards in multiple choice examinations: AMEE Guide No. 37.
Bandaranayake RC
Med Teach; 2008; 30(9-10):836-45. PubMed ID: 19117221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Computer based testing: implications for testing handicapped/disabled examinees.
Yocom CJ
Comput Nurs; 1991; 9(4):145-8. PubMed ID: 1832581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Use of stepwise regression computer program as an aid in the selection of medical technology students.
Feeley MA
Am J Med Technol; 1975 Feb; 41(2):60-1. PubMed ID: 1115082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Who will pass the dental OSCE? Comparison of the Angoff and the borderline regression standard setting methods.
Schoonheim-Klein M; Muijtjens A; Habets L; Manogue M; van der Vleuten C; van der Velden U
Eur J Dent Educ; 2009 Aug; 13(3):162-71. PubMed ID: 19630935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Student accuracy and evaluation of a computer-based audience response system.
Holmes RG; Blalock JS; Parker MH; Haywood VB
J Dent Educ; 2006 Dec; 70(12):1355-61. PubMed ID: 17170327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Pre-athletic training students perform better on written tests with teacher-centered instruction.
Livecchi NM; Merrick MA; Ingersoll CD; Stemmans CL
J Allied Health; 2004; 33(3):200-4. PubMed ID: 15503754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A study of student performance on self-scheduled, computer-based examinations in a medical histology course: is later better?
Burns ER; Garrett JE; Childs GV
Med Teach; 2007 Nov; 29(9):990-2. PubMed ID: 18158680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Applying the item response theory to classroom examinations.
Lawson DM
J Manipulative Physiol Ther; 2006 Jun; 29(5):393-7. PubMed ID: 16762668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Is an Angoff standard an indication of minimal competence of examinees or of judges?
Verheggen MM; Muijtjens AM; Van Os J; Schuwirth LW
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2008 May; 13(2):203-11. PubMed ID: 17043915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The effect of reused questions on repeat examinees.
Wood TJ
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2009 Oct; 14(4):465-73. PubMed ID: 18528773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
