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 *

166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23288470)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. The impact of item-writing flaws and item complexity on examination item difficulty and discrimination value.
    Rush BR; Rankin DC; White BJ
    BMC Med Educ; 2016 Sep; 16(1):250. PubMed ID: 27681933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. High time for a change: psychometric analysis of multiple-choice questions in nursing.
    Redmond SP; Hartigan-Rogers JA; Cobbett S
    Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh; 2012 Nov; 9():. PubMed ID: 23192053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Pushing Critical Thinking Skills With Multiple-Choice Questions: Does Bloom's Taxonomy Work?
    Zaidi NLB; Grob KL; Monrad SM; Kurtz JB; Tai A; Ahmed AZ; Gruppen LD; Santen SA
    Acad Med; 2018 Jun; 93(6):856-859. PubMed ID: 29215375
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Characterizing novice-expert differences in macrocognition: an exploratory study of cognitive work in the emergency department.
    Schubert CC; Denmark TK; Crandall B; Grome A; Pappas J
    Ann Emerg Med; 2013 Jan; 61(1):96-109. PubMed ID: 23036439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Designing multiple-choice test items at higher cognitive levels.
    Su WM; Osisek PJ; Montgomery C; Pellar S
    Nurse Educ; 2009; 34(5):223-7. PubMed ID: 19726967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Developing and evaluating innovative items for the NCLEX: Part 2, item characteristics and cognitive processing.
    Wendt A; Harmes JC
    Nurse Educ; 2009; 34(3):109-13. PubMed ID: 19412048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Assessment of item-writing flaws in multiple-choice questions.
    Nedeau-Cayo R; Laughlin D; Rus L; Hall J
    J Nurses Prof Dev; 2013; 29(2):52-7; quiz E1-2. PubMed ID: 23657034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Assessing reflective writing on a pediatric clerkship by using a modified Bloom's Taxonomy.
    Plack MM; Driscoll M; Marquez M; Cuppernull L; Maring J; Greenberg L
    Ambul Pediatr; 2007; 7(4):285-91. PubMed ID: 17660099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Item analysis for the written test of Taiwanese board certification examination in anaesthesiology using the Rasch model.
    Chang KY; Tsou MY; Chan KH; Chang SH; Tai JJ; Chen HH
    Br J Anaesth; 2010 Jun; 104(6):717-22. PubMed ID: 20427368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 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 9.