259 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22139777)
1. Are faculty predictions or item taxonomies useful for estimating the outcome of multiple-choice examinations?
Kibble JD; Johnson T
Adv Physiol Educ; 2011 Dec; 35(4):396-401. PubMed ID: 22139777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Is a picture worth a thousand words: an analysis of the difficulty and discrimination parameters of illustrated vs. text-alone vignettes in histology multiple choice questions.
Holland J; O'Sullivan R; Arnett R
BMC Med Educ; 2015 Oct; 15():184. PubMed ID: 26502882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Validity of multiple-choice examinations in surgery.
Stillman RM
Surgery; 1984 Jul; 96(1):97-101. PubMed ID: 6740501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Multiple choice questions can be designed or revised to challenge learners' critical thinking.
Tractenberg RE; Gushta MM; Mulroney SE; Weissinger PA
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2013 Dec; 18(5):945-61. PubMed ID: 23288470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Minimum accepted competency examination: test item analysis.
McCrossan P; Nicholson A; McCallion N
BMC Med Educ; 2022 May; 22(1):400. PubMed ID: 35614439
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Faculty development on item writing substantially improves item quality.
Naeem N; van der Vleuten C; Alfaris EA
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2012 Aug; 17(3):369-76. PubMed ID: 21837548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. It takes only 100 true-false items to test medical students: true or false?
Pamphlett R
Med Teach; 2005 Aug; 27(5):468-72. PubMed ID: 16147803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. On being examined: do students and faculty agree?
Perrella A; Koenig J; Kwon H; Nastos S; Rangachari PK
Adv Physiol Educ; 2015 Dec; 39(4):320-6. PubMed ID: 26628655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The impact of repeated item development training on the prediction of medical faculty members' item difficulty index.
Lee HY; Yune SJ; Lee SY; Im S; Kam BS
BMC Med Educ; 2024 May; 24(1):599. PubMed ID: 38816855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Understanding protein synthesis: a role-play approach in large undergraduate human anatomy and physiology classes.
Sturges D; Maurer TW; Cole O
Adv Physiol Educ; 2009 Jun; 33(2):103-10. PubMed ID: 19509395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Quality assurance of item writing: during the introduction of multiple choice questions in medicine for high stakes examinations.
Ware J; Vik T
Med Teach; 2009 Mar; 31(3):238-43. PubMed ID: 18825568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Assessing the quality of multiple-choice test items.
Clifton SL; Schriner CL
Nurse Educ; 2010; 35(1):12-6. PubMed ID: 20010262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Are undergraduate examinees' perceptions of item difficulty related to item characteristics?
Morse DT; Morse LW
Percept Mot Skills; 2002 Dec; 95(3 Pt 2):1281-6. PubMed ID: 12578272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Difficulty and discrimination indices of multiple-choice examination items in a college of pharmacy therapeutics and pathophysiology course sequence.
Caballero J; Wolowich WR; Benavides S; Marino J
Int J Pharm Pract; 2014 Feb; 22(1):76-83. PubMed ID: 23419201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Item analysis of examinations in the Faculty of Medicine of Tunis.
Hermi A; Achour W
Tunis Med; 2016 Apr; 94(4):247-252. PubMed ID: 27704506
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. The interpersonal, cognitive and efficiency domains of clinical teaching: construct validity of a multi-dimensional scale.
Beckman TJ; Mandrekar JN
Med Educ; 2005 Dec; 39(12):1221-9. PubMed ID: 16313581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
