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 *

407 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22803753)

  • 1. Using automatic item generation to create multiple-choice test items.
    Gierl MJ; Lai H; Turner SR
    Med Educ; 2012 Aug; 46(8):757-65. PubMed ID: 22803753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evaluating the quality of medical multiple-choice items created with automated processes.
    Gierl MJ; Lai H
    Med Educ; 2013 Jul; 47(7):726-33. PubMed ID: 23746162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Three Modeling Applications to Promote Automatic Item Generation for Examinations in Dentistry.
    Lai H; Gierl MJ; Byrne BE; Spielman AI; Waldschmidt DM
    J Dent Educ; 2016 Mar; 80(3):339-47. PubMed ID: 26933110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Using cognitive models to develop quality multiple-choice questions.
    Pugh D; De Champlain A; Gierl M; Lai H; Touchie C
    Med Teach; 2016 Aug; 38(8):838-43. PubMed ID: 26998566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A suggestive approach for assessing item quality, usability and validity of Automatic Item Generation.
    Falcão F; Pereira DM; Gonçalves N; De Champlain A; Costa P; Pêgo JM
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2023 Dec; 28(5):1441-1465. PubMed ID: 37097483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Using Automatic Item Generation to Create Multiple-Choice Questions for Pharmacy Assessment.
    Leslie T; Gierl MJ
    Am J Pharm Educ; 2023 Oct; 87(10):100081. PubMed ID: 37852684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Three Sources of Validation Evidence Needed to Evaluate the Quality of Generated Test Items for Medical Licensure.
    Gierl M; Swygert K; Matovinovic D; Kulesher A; Lai H
    Teach Learn Med; 2024; 36(1):72-82. PubMed ID: 36106359
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Comparing narrative and multiple-choice formats in online communication skill assessment.
    Kim S; Spielberg F; Mauksch L; Farber S; Duong C; Fitch W; Greer T
    Med Educ; 2009 Jun; 43(6):533-41. PubMed ID: 19493177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Competency-based classification of COMLEX-USA cognitive examination test items.
    Langenau E; Pugliano G; Roberts W
    J Am Osteopath Assoc; 2011 Jun; 111(6):396-402. PubMed ID: 21771926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Automated Test-Item Generation System for Retrieval Practice in Radiology Education.
    Gunabushanam G; Taylor CR; Mathur M; Bokhari J; Scoutt LM
    Acad Radiol; 2019 Jun; 26(6):851-859. PubMed ID: 30316703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Improved student learning in ophthalmology with computer-aided instruction.
    Devitt P; Smith JR; Palmer E
    Eye (Lond); 2001 Oct; 15(Pt 5):635-9. PubMed ID: 11702976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Measurement practices: methods for developing content-valid student examinations.
    Bridge PD; Musial J; Frank R; Roe T; Sawilowsky S
    Med Teach; 2003 Jul; 25(4):414-21. PubMed ID: 12893554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The promise and challenge of including multimedia items in medical licensure examinations: some insights from an empirical trial.
    Shen L; Li F; Wattleworth R; Filipetto F
    Acad Med; 2010 Oct; 85(10 Suppl):S56-9. PubMed ID: 20881705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Assessing the quality of clinical teaching: a preliminary study.
    Conigliaro RL; Stratton TD
    Med Educ; 2010 Apr; 44(4):379-86. PubMed ID: 20444073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Alternate item types: continuing the quest for authentic testing.
    Wendt A; Kenny LE
    J Nurs Educ; 2009 Mar; 48(3):150-6. PubMed ID: 19297965
    [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]
    of 21.