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 *

88 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]
    of 5.