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 *

183 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23829147)

  • 1. Fostering revision of argumentative writing through structured peer assessment.
    Tsai YC; Chuang MT
    Percept Mot Skills; 2013 Feb; 116(1):210-21. PubMed ID: 23829147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Peer-assessment of medical communication skills: the impact of students' personality, academic and social reputation on behavioural assessment.
    Hulsman RL; Peters JF; Fabriek M
    Patient Educ Couns; 2013 Sep; 92(3):346-54. PubMed ID: 23916674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Improved patient notes from medical students during web-based teaching using faculty-calibrated peer review and self-assessment.
    McCarty T; Parkes MV; Anderson TT; Mines J; Skipper BJ; Grebosky J
    Acad Med; 2005 Oct; 80(10 Suppl):S67-70. PubMed ID: 16199462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Staff nurses writing for their peers: development of self-learning modules.
    Clifford P; Goldschmidt K; O'Connor T
    J Nurses Staff Dev; 2007; 23(6):283-8. PubMed ID: 18043337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Peer review as an educational strategy to improve academic work: an interdisciplinary collaboration between communication disorders and nursing.
    Schlisselberg G; Moscou S
    Work; 2013; 44(3):355-60. PubMed ID: 23324687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effects of rater selection on peer assessment among medical students.
    Lurie SJ; Nofziger AC; Meldrum S; Mooney C; Epstein RM
    Med Educ; 2006 Nov; 40(11):1088-97. PubMed ID: 17054618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Writing intervention in university students with normal hearing and in those with hearing impairment: can observational learning improve argumentative text writing?
    van de Weijer J; Åkerlund V; Johansson V; Sahlén B
    Logoped Phoniatr Vocol; 2019 Oct; 44(3):115-123. PubMed ID: 29303017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Design, implementation, and evaluation of an online supported peer feedback module to enhance students' argumentative essay quality.
    Noroozi O; Banihashem SK; Biemans HJA; Smits M; Vervoort MTW; Verbaan CL
    Educ Inf Technol (Dordr); 2023 Mar; ():1-28. PubMed ID: 37361820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Learning About and Benefiting From Peer Review: A Course Assignment for Doctoral Students at Two Different Universities.
    Sethares KA; Morris NS
    J Nurs Educ; 2016 Jun; 55(6):342-4. PubMed ID: 27224463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Doing peer review and receiving feedback: impact on scientific literacy and writing skills.
    Geithner CA; Pollastro AN
    Adv Physiol Educ; 2016 Mar; 40(1):38-46. PubMed ID: 26847256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Writing to learn: an evaluation of the calibrated peer review™ program in two neuroscience courses.
    Prichard JR
    J Undergrad Neurosci Educ; 2005; 4(1):A34-9. PubMed ID: 23493247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Tips for writing and publishing an article.
    Nahata MC
    Ann Pharmacother; 2008 Feb; 42(2):273-7. PubMed ID: 18212252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Peer review by early career psychiatrists: an opportunity for development.
    Gross AF; Wiechers IR; Stern TA
    J Clin Psychiatry; 2009 Nov; 70(11):1600-1. PubMed ID: 20031102
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Peer coaching to support writing development.
    Peinhardt RD; Hagler D
    J Nurs Educ; 2013 Jan; 52(1):24-8. PubMed ID: 23181459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Peer review and the development of a science.
    Stichler JF
    HERD; 2011; 4(3):44-9. PubMed ID: 21866503
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The evaluation of a peer-led question-writing task.
    Nwosu A; Mason S; Roberts A; Hugel H
    Clin Teach; 2013 Jun; 10(3):151-4. PubMed ID: 23656675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The peer review process: a primer for
    Hirsch JA; Manchikanti L; Albuquerque FC; Leslie-Mazwi TM; Lev MH; Linfante I; Mocco J; Rai AT; Schaefer PW; Tarr RW
    J Neurointerv Surg; 2017 Jul; 9(e1):e3-e6. PubMed ID: 25888447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Writing for publication in medical education: the benefits of a faculty development workshop and peer writing group.
    Steinert Y; McLeod PJ; Liben S; Snell L
    Med Teach; 2008; 30(8):e280-5. PubMed ID: 18946816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Generosity, collegiality, and scientific accuracy when writing and reviewing original research.
    Desselle SP; Chen AM; Amin M; Aslani P; Dawoud D; Miller MJ; Norgaard LS
    Res Social Adm Pharm; 2020 Feb; 16(2):261-265. PubMed ID: 31101458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Multiple goals, writing strategies, and written outcomes for college students learning English as a second language.
    He TH; Chang SM; Chen SH
    Percept Mot Skills; 2011 Apr; 112(2):401-16. PubMed ID: 21667751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.