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 *

142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23437081)

  • 1. Negatively-marked MCQ assessments that reward partial knowledge do not introduce gender bias yet increase student performance and satisfaction and reduce anxiety.
    Bond AE; Bodger O; Skibinski DO; Jones DH; Restall CJ; Dudley E; van Keulen G
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(2):e55956. PubMed ID: 23437081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Elimination testing with adapted scoring reduces guessing and anxiety in multiple-choice assessments, but does not increase grade average in comparison with negative marking.
    Vanderoost J; Janssen R; Eggermont J; Callens R; De Laet T
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(10):e0203931. PubMed ID: 30278049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Negative Marking and the Student Physician--A Descriptive Study of Nigerian Medical Schools.
    Ndu IK; Ekwochi U; Di Osuorah C; Asinobi IN; Nwaneri MO; Uwaezuoke SN; Amadi OF; Okeke IB; Chinawa JM; Orjioke CJG
    J Med Educ Curric Dev; 2016; 3():. PubMed ID: 29349304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparing a script concordance examination to a multiple-choice examination on a core internal medicine clerkship.
    Kelly W; Durning S; Denton G
    Teach Learn Med; 2012; 24(3):187-93. PubMed ID: 22775780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Testing of medical students with open-ended, uncued questions.
    Damjanov I; Fenderson BA; Veloski JJ; Rubin E
    Hum Pathol; 1995 Apr; 26(4):362-5. PubMed ID: 7705813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Assessing the influence of gender, learning style, and pre-entry experience on student response to delivery of a novel veterinary curriculum.
    Foster N; Gardner D; Kydd J; Robinson R; Roshier M
    J Vet Med Educ; 2010; 37(3):266-75. PubMed ID: 20847336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Usable knowledge, hazardous ignorance - beyond the percentage correct score.
    Dory V; Degryse J; Roex A; Vanpee D
    Med Teach; 2010; 32(5):375-80. PubMed ID: 20423255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Certainty rating in pre-and post-tests of study modules in an online clinical pharmacy course - A pilot study to evaluate teaching and learning.
    Luetsch K; Burrows J
    BMC Med Educ; 2016 Oct; 16(1):267. PubMed ID: 27741945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The Effect of English Language on Multiple Choice Question Scores of Thai Medical Students.
    Phisalprapa P; Muangkaew W; Assanasen J; Kunavisarut T; Thongngarm T; Ruchutrakool T; Kobwanthanakun S; Dejsomritrutai W
    J Med Assoc Thai; 2016 Apr; 99(4):446-52. PubMed ID: 27396231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effect of remote online exam delivery on student experience and performance in applied knowledge tests.
    Jaap A; Dewar A; Duncan C; Fairhurst K; Hope D; Kluth D
    BMC Med Educ; 2021 Feb; 21(1):86. PubMed ID: 33530962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparative evaluation of multiple choice question formats. Introducing a knowledge score.
    Rahim SI; Abumadini MS
    Neurosciences (Riyadh); 2003 Jul; 8(3):156-60. PubMed ID: 23649110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A novel student-led approach to multiple-choice question generation and online database creation, with targeted clinician input.
    Harris BH; Walsh JL; Tayyaba S; Harris DA; Wilson DJ; Smith PE
    Teach Learn Med; 2015; 27(2):182-8. PubMed ID: 25893940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Creating assessments as an active learning strategy: what are students' perceptions? A mixed methods study.
    Kurtz JB; Lourie MA; Holman EE; Grob KL; Monrad SU
    Med Educ Online; 2019 Dec; 24(1):1630239. PubMed ID: 31248355
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Choosing medical assessments: Does the multiple-choice question make the grade?
    Pham H; Trigg M; Wu S; O'Connell A; Harry C; Barnard J; Devitt P
    Educ Health (Abingdon); 2018; 31(2):65-71. PubMed ID: 30531047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Relationship between anxiety and standardized patient test performance in the medicine clerkship.
    Reteguiz JA
    J Gen Intern Med; 2006 May; 21(5):415-8. PubMed ID: 16704380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Exploring examinee behaviours as validity evidence for multiple-choice question examinations.
    Surry LT; Torre D; Durning SJ
    Med Educ; 2017 Oct; 51(10):1075-1085. PubMed ID: 28758233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. PeerWise and Pathology: Discontinuing a teaching innovation that did not achieve its potential.
    Smith CD; Dai A; Kenwright D; Grainger R
    MedEdPublish (2016); 2020; 9():27. PubMed ID: 38058910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Analysis of short-answer question styles versus gender in pre-clinical veterinary education.
    Foster N
    J Vet Med Educ; 2011; 38(1):67-73. PubMed ID: 21805937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The introduction of single best answer questions as a test of knowledge in the final examination for the fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists in Clinical Oncology.
    Tan LT; McAleer JJ;
    Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol); 2008 Oct; 20(8):571-6. PubMed ID: 18585017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Timing is key to providing modified assessments for students with specific learning difficulties.
    Gray CP; Burr SA
    Perspect Med Educ; 2020 Feb; 9(1):49-56. PubMed ID: 31858453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.