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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26350082)

  • 1. The Impact of item flaws, testing at low cognitive level, and low distractor functioning on multiple-choice question quality.
    Ali SH; Ruit KG
    Perspect Med Educ; 2015 Oct; 4(5):244-251. PubMed ID: 26350082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Nonfunctional distractor analysis: An indicator for quality of Multiple choice questions.
    Sajjad M; Iltaf S; Khan RA
    Pak J Med Sci; 2020; 36(5):982-986. PubMed ID: 32704275
    [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. Relations of the Number of Functioning Distractors With the Item Difficulty Index and the Item Discrimination Power in the Multiple Choice Questions.
    Chauhan GR; Chauhan BR; Vaza JV; Chauhan PR
    Cureus; 2023 Jul; 15(7):e42492. PubMed ID: 37644928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Examining the impact of specific types of item-writing flaws on student performance and psychometric properties of the multiple choice question.
    Pham H; Besanko J; Devitt P
    MedEdPublish (2016); 2018; 7():225. PubMed ID: 38089249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Knowledge of dental faculty in gulf cooperation council states of multiple-choice questions' item writing flaws.
    Kowash M; Alhobeira H; Hussein I; Al Halabi M; Khan S
    Med Educ Online; 2020 Dec; 25(1):1812224. PubMed ID: 32835640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Item analysis: the impact of distractor efficiency on the difficulty index and discrimination power of multiple-choice items.
    Rezigalla AA; Eleragi AMESA; Elhussein AB; Alfaifi J; ALGhamdi MA; Al Ameer AY; Yahia AIO; Mohammed OA; Adam MIE
    BMC Med Educ; 2024 Apr; 24(1):445. PubMed ID: 38658912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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 Pract; 2006 Dec; 6(6):354-63. PubMed ID: 19040902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Item analysis and optimizing multiple-choice questions for a viable question bank in ophthalmology: A cross-sectional study.
    Bhat SK; Prasad KHL
    Indian J Ophthalmol; 2021 Feb; 69(2):343-346. PubMed ID: 33463588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Quality of multiple-choice questions in medical internship qualification examination determined by item response theory at Debre Tabor University, Ethiopia.
    Belay LM; Sendekie TY; Eyowas FA
    BMC Med Educ; 2022 Aug; 22(1):635. PubMed ID: 35989323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Psychometrics of Multiple Choice Questions with Non-Functioning Distracters: Implications to Medical Education.
    Deepak KK; Al-Umran KU; AI-Sheikh MH; Dkoli BV; Al-Rubaish A
    Indian J Physiol Pharmacol; 2015; 59(4):428-35. PubMed ID: 27530011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Construction and Writing Flaws of the Multiple-Choice Questions in the Published Test Banks of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Adoption, Caution, or Mitigation?
    Balaha MH; El-Ibiary MT; El-Dorf AA; El-Shewaikh SL; Balaha HM
    Avicenna J Med; 2022 Jul; 12(3):138-147. PubMed ID: 36092385
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: a descriptive analysis.
    Tarrant M; Ware J; Mohammed AM
    BMC Med Educ; 2009 Jul; 9():40. PubMed ID: 19580681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A psychometric analysis of a newly developed summative, multiple choice question assessment adapted from Canada to a Middle Eastern context.
    Pawluk SA; Shah K; Minhas R; Rainkie D; Wilby KJ
    Curr Pharm Teach Learn; 2018 Aug; 10(8):1026-1032. PubMed ID: 30314537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. The Role of Faculty Development in Improving the Quality of Multiple-Choice Questions in Dental Education.
    Shaikh S; Kannan SK; Naqvi ZA; Pasha Z; Ahamad M
    J Dent Educ; 2020 Mar; 84(3):316-322. PubMed ID: 32176343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluating the Quality of Examination Items From the Pathophysiology, Drug Action, and Therapeutics Course Series.
    Shultz B; Kopale MS; Benken S; Mucksavage J
    Am J Pharm Educ; 2024 Aug; 88(8):100757. PubMed ID: 38996841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.